High Court
Delhi HC to further hear Kantar case tomorrow; hints at an interim arrangement
NEW DELHI: The deadline for implementing the TV ratings agencies policy is inching closer. But Kantar Market Research Services, a shareholder of current and only ratings agency TAM, had decided that it had to challenge the guidelines in the Delhi High Court.
While still not giving it a stay order today, the court has decided that it will continue hearing the case. The next date of hearing is tomorrow. Kantar counsel today argued that the directive of the ministry on TV ratings guidelines had been done under an executive action, which can be questioned in a court of law. Counsel for Kantar also said that since the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was still under formation, there would be a total blackout if TAM is not allowed to function.
Justice Manmohan while hearing the case remarked that though he was in favour of concluding the hearing before 15 February, he would ‘consider issuing an interim arrangement if the hearing goes on longer than that date’. 15 February is when the guidelines will become effective.
The three respondents Union of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) will present their case on Kantar’s petition for an interim stay order tomorrow.
Click here for the updated story
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?
