High Court
Delhi HC notice to Arnab Goswami on ‘theft’ suit by Times group
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court, which had earlier issued summons, has now issued a notice to Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami in a case filed against him by former employer Bennett, Coleman and Company Ltd (BCCL), owners of Times Now news channel. The complainant had alleged breach of employment contract and misusing intellectual property belonging to BCCL.
Goswami and his colleague Prema Sridevi, who was also in Times Now, are accused of having played audio tapes during a story on the mysterious death of Congress Party member and MP Shashi Tharoor’s wife Sunanda Pushkar. Times Now claims the audio tapes were its property. This development has been reported by legal news portal Live Law.
BCCL has alleged the Sunanda Pushkar tapes and those played out during a story done by Republic TV on its debut day on Lalu Prasad were ‘procured and accessed’ by Goswami and Sridevi while they were employed by Times Now.
While the court observed that an employee has to maintain confidentiality and utmost fidelity towards his employer and they cannot breach contract, it said that since the Times Group hasn’t submitted anything on record to prove that the audio recordings used by Goswami were parts of its database, it has only issued a short notice.
Earlier, the court had issued summons to Goswami, Sridevi and the ARG Outlier Media Private Limited, the company that owns Republic TV, in the matter.
ALSO READ:
IPR case: HC issues summons to Republic TV, hearing on 26 May
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?
