High Court
Delhi HC notice to Govt on petition seeking cancellation of Ad cap violating pay channels licenses
NEW DELHI: Even as the Ad cap case is pending before it, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on a fresh petition which has charged the ministry with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending Pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for uplinking and downlinking permission/license.
Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath asked the ministry to file its reply in four weeks.
Notice was issued only to the ministry, although the petition also listed 21st Century Fox Inc., Star India Private Limited, Discovery Communications Inc., and Discovery Networks Asia-Pacific (South Asia) as respondents.
Although the petition initially came up before a single bench on 19 May, it was directed to be posted before the court of the Chief Justice who is already hearing the other acap case filed by the News Broadcasters Association and others, and was heard on 27 May.
The petitioners Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd. have urged the court to issue directions for cancellation of the licences of Star India and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific as they are alleged to be in violation of the license conditions agreed by them under clause 5.2 of the uplinking guidelines and clause 5.1 of the downlinking guidelines, apart from the undertaking in the form of affidavit for the Up-linking and Down-linking Guidelines, and also in violation of the provisions of section 8 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It is alleged that these two have deliberately violated the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and rules thereunder.
The Court has also been urged to issue writ, order or direction to the two groups to deposit the revenue earned from the advertisement during the last three financial years (FY 2015-16, 2014-15, 2013-14) with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government constituted under the Excise Act, 1944
Directions have also been sought for the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre of the I & B Ministry to monitor all the Pay TV channels broadcast in India and report the violations of the prescribed Advertising Code under the rule 7 (10) and 7(11) of the CTN Rules, 1994 and the CTNR Act, 1995 on monthly/weekly basis.
The petition has alleged that the Pay TV broadcasters are in continuous violation of the terms of license under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines, and have in their weekly report admitted the same. It said “all the respondent channels are being parties as matter of illustration and ease of pleadings because the rule of minutage of advertisement 12 minutes per clock hour is in existence in several countries and these channels are strictly complying with such directives in other countries whereas they are in continued violations in India”.
It was pointed out that Star India is a 100 percent subsidiary of 21st Century Fox Inc. and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific is 100 percent subsidiary of Discovery Communications Inc.
It said the pay TV broadcasters are indulging into profiteering at the expense of poor ordinary consumers in blatant violation of important tariff structure contained in the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines and permissions granted by the Ministry.
The petitioner said it had given detailed representations to the ministry several times without getting any reply. The petitioner had written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection but received a reply that the matter pertained to the ministry.
It has been pointed out that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petitions before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal against the Standards of Quality of Service (duration of advertisements in television channels) Regulations 2012 and assured the Tribunal that its members would comply with the law.
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.
