High Court
Delhi HC wants to know if DTH players can run FM channels and VAS
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has sought a response of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and six direct-to-home (DTH) operators on a public interest litigation seeking to restrain DTH service providers from carrying any channel or value added service (VAS) which are not registered with or permitted by the government.
The court passed the order on the plea of Hyderabad-based NGO Media Watch-India (MWI) which alleged that DTH service providers carry self-promotion advertisements in violation of uplinking and downlinking guidelines.
Listing the matter for 4 March next year, a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice P S Teji issued notice to the Ministry as well as six DTH providers – Bharti Telemedia, Tata Sky, Dish TV, Sun Direct TV, Reliance Big TV and Bharat Business channel.
Counsel Gaurav Kumar Bansal said that value added services like ‘movie on demand’ or games are provided without specific licence from the Ministry. The NGO has said that even FM radio channels are being illegally provided and has sought orders restraining the DTH operators from providing these services.
The petitioner contended that the Ministry instead of taking action against these entities has been playing the role of a spectator while “statutory guidelines are being flouted with impunity by the private DTH operators”.
Meanwhile, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had recently issued a consultation on regulating platform services of service provider including MSOs cable operators and DTH operators and has also given the recommendation on 19 November which are under consideration of the Ministry.
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?
