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 HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
