High Court
Bombay, Telangana HCs yet to decide on TRAI tariff cases
MUMBAI: Cases have been filed in various courts across the country and while the Calcutta High Court has vacated the stay on the case and the Gujarat High Court has asked for a response from TRAI, the Bombay and Telangana courts are yet to decide on similar petitions.
The Telangana HC reserved judgment on a case filed by local cable operators who said that the regulations are arbitrary. The Pune Cable Operators Association went ahead and challenged TRAI as well, asking for a stay on the lines of the Calcutta High Court order. The bench, however, asked them to submit a copy of the order and refused to provide relief.
The Madras High Court dismissed the PIL against the TRAI tariff order last week by quoting the Supreme Court judgment that went in favour of the regulator late last year.
On 14 January, a similar case before the Kerala High Court was also dismissed which related to the revenue sharing aspect as well.
LCOs all over the country are up in arms against some suggestions that have been made in the new tariff regime by TRAI that came into effect from 1 February. After TRAI won the case against Star India in October, the regulator gave the industry time till December end to put things into action. This was later extended to 31 January which was confirmed to the last date and no more extensions would be granted beyond that.
Two days ago, TRAI claimed that all the stakeholders were ready with the new regime’s requirements. It also praised itself for ensuring that a large number of customers had exercised their options.
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?
