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 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.
