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 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.
