High Court
Delhi HC refuses to lift ban on ‘India’s Daughter;’ says media trial influences judges
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today refused to stay the ban on BBC’s documentary India’s Daughter by British filmmaker Leslee Udwin on the Nirbhaya gang rape of December 2012, saying the case was sub judice in Supreme Court and allowing its display in the masses could affect the case.
Justices BD Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva said media trials tend to influence judges by subconsciously creating pressure. Although the judges said they were prima facie not opposed to airing of the documentary, it should be released after the Supreme Court decides the appeals of the convicts in the matter.
“Media trials do tend to influence judges. Subconsciously a pressure is created and it does have an effect on the sentencing of the accused/ convict,” it said in support of its observation.
The bench was of the view that the documentary could “interfere with the justice system” but refused to pass any interim orders. “Had it been originally placed before us, we would have asked you to place material before us on why the ban should be lifted. But it has come here from the roster bench of Chief Justice, so we will not pass any interim orders.”
Observing that airing of the video could make or ruin the case of one of the rape convicts, Mukesh, it said, “Whether he has shown remorse or not would be considered at the time of his sentencing. Why not wait till the Supreme Court decision?”
On the contention that ban on airing of the video till the apex court judgement could also lead to gag on reporting of all sub judice matters, the bench said, “We agree.” It said that earlier media had a self-imposed code of not reporting sub judice matters, but now “media has thrown it (the code) to the winds.”
The Central government represented by advocate Monika Arora opposed airing of the documentary saying it would give a platform to the convict to air his views and that it also contains derogatory statements against the victim.
She also said that the Information and Broadcasting Ministry only issued an advisory to cable TV networks to abide by the magisterial court’s order banning airing of the documentary.
The petitioners claimed that since the documentary was freely available on the Internet, and its viewing by lakhs of people had caused no untoward or law and order situation, there are no grounds for banning the video. The petitioners also said that parts of the convict’s interview are already part of the judgment in the case by the trial court and High Court and thus are public records.
The court had earlier refused to give urgent hearing after three law students –Vibhor Anand, Arun Menon and Kritika Padode– in their two separate PILs said “fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression have been infringed due to government’s illegal action to ban the broadcast.” They had approached the High Court after a trial court on 4 March had banned until further orders the broadcast of the interview of 16 December, 2012 gangrape convict Mukesh Singh, allegedly conducted in July 2013 inside Tihar jail.
Earlier, a trial court had restrained the media from broadcasting or publishing the interview of Mukesh Singh after the Delhi Police moved the court seeking the restraint. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry had also issued an advisory to all television channels not to broadcast the film or excerpts from it.
The pleas had sought lifting of the ban on the ground that it is “a look at the mindset of one of the convicted rapists.” One of the pleas had also sought direction to the Bar Council of India to expedite action against the two lawyers — advocate AP Singh and ML Sharma — who had allegedly made derogatory anti-women remarks in the documentary. It also claimed that the parents of the gangrape victim have not objected to the telecast of the documentary.
Meanwhile, Udwin told the Los Angeles Times that the Indian government should hang its head in shame for banning her film.
However, the government claims she was permitted to interview the convicts in jail when she said was doing research and would not use the film for commercial purposes. The film has already been aired in several countries including the United States and the BBC4 in the United Kingdom. NDTV was to have aired the film on International Women’s Day but could not do so in view of the ban.
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.
