High Court
Delhi HC rejects government’s plea on CAS
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court today orally rejected the government’s plea for granting it three months time to sort out issues related to conditional access system (CAS), but granted it a week to make a written submission on the matter.
At a hearing in the Delhi High Court in a case filed by the MSO Alliance against the Central government, the judge refused to tow the government counsel’s line that matters relating to the public still needed to be sorted out for which further time should be granted.
To a line of argument that the government was still trying to regulate the individual price of pay channels, the petitioner contended that it was for the sector regulator, also a respondent in the case, to decide on such issues.
After the government makes a written submission on the issue of CAS and its implementation in a week’s time, the petitioner has the right to file a rejoinder if it feels the need.
This would also mark the end of arguments after which a court verdict is expected.
The petitioner has contended that the Central government’s ambivalence on CAS has resulted in financial loss to MSOs in particular and the cable fraternity in general.
The government had amended the Cable TV (Network) Regulation Act 1995 in 2002 making it compulsory for cable operators to supply pay channels only through an addressable system, using a set top box.
However, after a series of missed starts, CAS is today functional only in Chennai and is non operational by virtue of a government notification dated 27 February, 2004 in Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai, where addressability was supposed to have been implemented in phases.
This notification was ostensibly passed to enable Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to complete its study of the Indian broadcasting and cable scenario and give recommendations to the government, which was submitted on 1 October, 2004.
A year on, the government has done nothing to either reject or accept the Trai recommendations, which agree that to give choice to viewers the only answer lies in providing addressability to customers.
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?
