High Court
Delhi HC orders X user to pay Rs 5 lakh to TV Today over defamatory posts
MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has directed X user Anurag Srivastava to pay Rs 5 lakh in damages to TV Today for defamatory posts on X targeting the channel and its journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. The posts were made in reaction to an interview with actor Rhea Chakraborty that aired in 2020.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the posts were “highly defamatory” and had not been backed by evidence, despite the defendant being given enough opportunity to do so.
“The Court finds that the objectionable tweets were highly defamatory and remain unsubstantiated by the defendant, despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity to do so. Such an irresponsible act of the defendant has to be deprecated.
“Having considered the overall circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to award Rs 5,00,000 as general compensatory damages to the plaintiff, to redress the reputational harm, emotional hardship, and loss of professional credibility caused by the conduct of the defendant,” the order read.
The case was filed in 2020 by TV Today against Srivastava, who operated the handles @theanuragkts and @theanuragoffice on X (formerly Twitter).
Soon after the interview went live, Srivastava posted derogatory comments about Sardesai, including calling him a “dalla,” (a derogatory Hindi term implying ‘pimp’), and comparing him to controversial preacher Zakir Naik. He also alleged that Chakraborty had bribed both Sardesai and the channel to secure the interview.
TV Today told the court that these remarks were part of a “systematic attack” on the anchor and the network’s reputation. It added that the damage extended to its business as well, pointing out that annual income fell from Rs 899.57 crore in 2019–20 to Rs 819.92 crore in 2020–21.
Srivastava later deleted the posts and assured the court that he would not repost them. Interim orders had already restrained him from uploading similar content.
The High Court has now directed him to pay Rs 5 lakh to TV Today as compensation for reputational harm and loss of credibility.
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?
