High Court
Conflicting claims over Mumbai High Court ruling of 7 March
MUMBAI: The High Court ruling on 7 March 2003 has led to a lot of confusion and varying interpretations amongst the various cable trade constituents.
A division bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising chief justice C L Thakker and Dr DY Chandrachud ruled that the matter would be ordered to be placed in the High Court in the second week of April 2003.
The court order also accepted one of the petitioner’s Seven Star cable’s undertaking that there would be no disconnection or stoppage of broadcasting of programmes except in individual cases of non-payment of regular charges.
However, the order states that the above statement doesn’t prevent arguments on behalf of the MSOs.
Seven Star officials claim that the above mentioned statement is binding on all the MSOs (multi-system operators) in Mumbai. However, the counsels of the other MSOs argue that the decision is binding only on Seven Star (which gave the undertaking) and not necessarily on the other MSOs. They also claim that the existing agreements between the cable operators and the MSOs are still valid.
Other cable sources say that Seven Star isn’t a full-fledged MSO in the true sense of the word in terms of their total reach across Mumbai city. They also point out that Seven Star had already hiked its rates in late 2002 and the trade/consumers had protested against these rate hikes then.
Most of the other MSOs increased their rates only in January 2003 as per the new rate agreements with the broadcasters who hiked the rates of the pay channels.
Also, the MSOs say, the consumer prices cannot be determined by the courts and will be determined by market forces. They insist that the cable operators affiliated to them would have to collect the new rates applicable from 1 January 2003 as per the agreement.
The High Court ruling also directed the cable associations named respondents (Mumbai Cable Operators Federation – MCOF – amongst others) to avoid disconnections as the counsel for the petitioners had served notices and undertook the process of filing affidavit of services.
The other cable associations in the city who are not affiliated to MCOF say that the HC ruling is not binding on them.
Meanwhile, the cable operators associations are hoping that at the next CAS task force meeting on 21 March, some indications as to the FTA basic tier pricing will be provided by the government. The cable operators are also awaiting another hearing on the issue of the lower cap of Rs 150 (filed by BJP MP Kirit Somaiya) which is scheduled for 2 April 2003.
Another rumour doing rounds is that cable operators are collecting funds (Rs 1,000 per operator) to petition the Supreme Court. Some operators say that this is the only way to pre-empt any future decision that the High Court may arrive at.
Also read:
HC to hear affected parties on 4 April
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?
