High Court
Calcutta HC extends Digicable Comm interim stay till 6 April
KOLKATA: Granting relief to Digicable Comm once again, the Calcutta High Court has extended the interim stay till 6 April 2015.
Previously, the Calcutta High Court had put the stay order on the cancellation of the registration of Kolkata-based multi-system operator (MSOs) till 17 January 2015, citing that Digicable Comm, having been in business for quite some time and would suffer irreparable loss and injury, unless appropriate ad-interim protection is granted to them.
Jishnu Saha, a senior advocate for the petitioners, did hope for an extension of the interim order. An extension was also sought to file the affidavit-in reply since affidavit-in-opposition had been filed out of time. “Interim order already granted is extended till 6 April, 2015 or until further order, whichever is earlier,” said DigiCableComm Services operations and technology VP Lokesh Agarwal, quoting the letter.
As hoped, time to file affidavit-in-reply has been extended till 27 January, 2015, he further said.
It should be noted that in July last year, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had cancelled the registration of Digicable Comm. Services.
Digicable Comm, a joint venture (JV) between Digicable (51 per cent) and Kolkata-headquartered Multicar Group (49 per cent) was formed in the year 2009, to gain the foothold in the West Bengal market.
Digicable Comm is hopeful that after appealing to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and moving to the High Court, the decision would be in favour of the MSO. “We are happy to get the stay order extended from the High Court. Slowly we will expand in the region,” added Agarwal.
MHA cancelled the company’s permanent registration on 18 July due to denial of security clearance.
Cable TV experts when asked to comment on the reason for the denial of security clearance by authorities said this might be due to Amit Nag who was the then chief executive officer (CEO) and on the board and the application for DAS (digital addressable system) had his signature.
Now, going forward what happened with the MSO here is not hidden from anyone. Nag not only resigned from Digicable but had convinced around 412 of the 600 cable operators affiliated to Digi Cable to switch to Hathway along with him. More than 400 LCOs affiliated to DigiCable when switched to Hathway did not think that they would have to spend sleepless nights and some even behind bars, cable TV sources said.
At present, Digicable Com which boasted more than four lakh connections in the KM area is left with less than 50,000 set top boxes (STBs).
“We will follow the mandates. We are hopeful that the authorities would consider the minute details presented by us,” said Agarwal.
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?
