High Court
CBFC has powers to issue multiple certificates on various versions of films
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has been informed that the Central Board of Film Certification can issue multiple “certifications” with respect to various versions of a film.
In its affidavit filed before a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice R S Endlaw, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry said the certificate is issued on the content as and when it is changed while being shown on TV channels.
The submission was in reply to a public interest litigation opposing issuance of universal certificates to an adult movie after deletion of some contents. The petition was also against the practice of conversion of ‘A’ films into ‘U/A’ and ‘U’ to enable their telecast on TV channels.
“Provision of the Cinematograph Act and Rules clearly provide for multiple certifications being issued with respect to various versions of one particular film.
“Under the Cinematograph Act, the certification is done of the content and when there is change in content, recertification is required and is done,” the Ministry said.
The CBFC “has absolute power to certify films and it is also a competent authority to entertain applications seeking certificate of films which are altered by way of deletion/addition of certain scenes/dialogues.”
The plea was filed by Edara Gopi Chand, vice-president, Media Watch-India through advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal.
The petitioner said children and adolescents are exposed to ‘adult’ film material like drug use, adultery, extramarital affairs, ribald comedy, intimate scenes of romance and sexuality, ‘item songs’ with vulgar lyrics and dance sequences, scenes involving rape and other heinous acts against women, films with extreme violence, films of horror and thriller genres etc.
“The adverse impact of such content on the impressionable minds of children and adolescents is well-established by various research studies at national and international levels. By such exposure, the due right of minors to be protected from harmful/age-inappropriate media content is being violated,” the plea said.
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?
