High Court
Coronavirus: PIL filed in Madras HC against conducting IPL
MUMBAI: A PIL has been filed in the Madras High Court requesting the government not to allow the Board of Cricket Council of India from holding IPL in view of the coronavirus outbreak.
According to media reports, the PIL is likely to come up before a division bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Krishnan Ramaswamy on 12 March.
The petitioner said, “As per the website of the World Health Organisation, there was no specific medicine or to prevent or to treat the COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) as on date.”
The petitioner also said that the virus has been spreading all over the world rapidly and creating panic across countries, according to media reports.
The virus that first appeared in Wuhan city of China has spread to over 46 countries and entered India earlier this month. Around 60 positive cases have been confirmed in India as of Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the country’s biggest cricketing event is scheduled between 29 March and 24 April with the first match being played between Mumbai Indians and Chennai Super Kings.
The most affected country in Europe is Italy, wherein over 10,000 confirmed cases have been reported as of Wednesday. “The Italy Federation League, one of the oldest leagues in the world, has been severely affected and the football games were being played behind closed doors with no fans allowed at any football ground until 3 April by the Italian government,” the petitioner said.
The media reports also mentioned that the petitioner had sent a representation to authorities not to allow the BCCI to conduct IPL T20 cricket matches.
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?
