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 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.
