High Court
Bombay HC to hear petitions against TRAI order
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court will hear on 26 February a petition filed by the Digital Cable Operators Association of Mumbai (DCOAM) and Maharashtra Cable Operations Foundation (MCOF), challenging the 'arbitrary' rules introduced by the TRAI.
They challenged before the High Court the network capacity fee (NCF) implemented by TRAI under the NTO-2 regime. The operators’ main contention was with regard to the NCF cap of Rs 160/month fixed by TRAI and additional TV connections and discounts. The petitioners claimed that the NTO would hinder their basic right to do business.
The court has set aside the matter for hearing for Wednesday.
Adv Rahul Soman, who appeared for the operators, contended that the TRAI has not fixed an upper limit for extra channels. So, the situation is such that customers can demand any number of channels, which will hamper the cable operators’ business, argued the lawyer.
A lot of stakeholders, in addition to some individuals, have moved various high courts in the country, challenging the TRAI’s new price regime. They include various broadcasters and bodies like the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF).
Early this year, TRAI stipulated 200 channels for a NCF of Rs 160. The regulator has also directed the DPOs not to charge more than the stipulated monthly charge of Rs 160 for providing all the available channels.
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
