High Court
Contempt proceedings against channels on crime serials adjourned
BANGALORE: A division bench of the Karnataka HC comprising of justices A M Farooq and B S Patil adjourned contempt proceedings against Sun Network’s Kannada channel Udaya TV and ETV for telecasting crime based serials to March 14.
On January 12, bailable warrants were issued against the channels based on a petition filed by Bangalore advocate A. V. Amarnathan.
The programmes referred in the petition were Udaya’s Crime Story, produced and directed by Balakrishna Kakatkar and ETV’s Crime Diary produced and directed by Ravi Belegere.
As reported by indiantelevision.com over the last two months, the state government had sought direction from the HC to ban the two serials since they were effecting fair trials of criminal cases, infringe upon the rights of citizens and adversely effect public interest, based on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Amaranthan. The government had also sought a blanket direction to the media not to carry stories in violation of the criminal justice system
The Karnataka High Court (HC) had permitted the advocate general to file contempt proceedings against two Kannada crime serials following Government counsel arguments that the opinions expressed in the serials about the innocence or guilt of the accused in any manner were pre-judicial to the interest of the justice delivery system, as it amounted to holding a parallel trial. Continued telecast of the serials could constitute contempt of court.
The serials were accused of presenting facts even before filing of an FIR, such as recorded views of police officers, interviewing criminals, victims and/or their next of kin, hence resulting in a trial by media, prejudicing and interfering with the judicial proceedings.
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?
