High Court
Bombay High Court to hear TRAI’s plea in NTO 2.0 case tomorrow
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court today heard the arguments of the broadcasters in their case against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) for the New Tariff Order or NTO 2.0. The bench will hear pleas from the lawyers of TRAI tomorrow.
In the previous hearing held yesterday, the court asked TRAI to take instructions on deferment of NTO 2.0 as they did for the 2017 regime before the Madras High Court.
The petitioners are against the ‘impugned provisions’ from the new price regime which was implemented last year. At the beginning of 2020, the industry watchdog modified certain provisions (described as impugned provisions) of the new price regime which were implemented last year. TRAI prescribed twin conditions on pricing; the sum of the a-la-carte rates of the pay channels (MRP) forming part of a bouquet shall in no case exceed one-and-a-half times the rate of the bouquet of which such pay channels are a part.
Recently, TRAI asked broadcasters and distribution platform operators (DPOs) to take necessary steps to ensure a smooth rollout of the amended new tariff order from 1 March. Both broadcasters and DPOs had been directed to publish the required information on their website to provide consumers sufficient time to exercise their choice of channels and bouquets before the implementation.
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.
