High Court
Delhi High Court stays the broadcast of Sudarshan News’ communal show
A major controversy erupted when Sudarshan News CMD & editor-in-chief Suresh Chavanke released a promo of his forthcoming episode UPSC Jihad of his television show Bindas Bol on Aug 25.
The promo clearly used disturbing and communal words and was themed on the exposé of Muslims who have infiltrated the highest working body in the government, our executive branch. The show was supposed to be aired on Aug 28 at 8 pm.
The promo, once released, immediately attracted outrage from journalists, police professionals, and IPS & IAS officers. IPS Association even issued a statement condemning the ‘communal and irresponsible piece of journalism’.
On Aug 28, the Delhi High Court stayed the proposed broadcast of the show after former and current students of Jamia Milia Islamia, filed a plea seeking a ban on the telecast. This came even as the Supreme Court on Friday declined to impose a pre-broadcast ban on the channel from airing the programme.
The plea alleged the show was an attempt to “defame, attack and incite hatred” against Jamia Milia Islamia, its alumni and the Muslim community at large. The HC stayed the broadcast until September 7.
The court also directed Sudarshan News to file a reply before September 1 on the notice issued by the ministry of information & broadcasting on the complaints it received against the show.
Justice Navin Chawla also issued a notice to the I&B ministry on the plea filed through advocate Shadan Farasat contending that the trailer of the show has “openly engaged” in hate speech.
Appearing for the I&B ministry, advocate Anurag Alhuwalia, the central government’s standing counsel, accepted the notice, following which the matter was posted for hearing on September 7.
The petition said the proposed broadcast along with the trailer violates the programme code set out under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, read with the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994.
“The proposed broadcast and trailer also constitute hate speech and criminal defamation and is an offense under Sections 153A (1), 153B(1), 295A and 499 of the Indian Penal Code,” the plea read.
After the order was passed, the show that was supposed to be telecast was not aired. Instead, Chavanke conducted another show where he accused Jamia Milia Islamia students and alumni of using the court to get the show stopped.
The Delhi High Court on Saturday further refused to lift its stay order. This came a day after the High Court stayed the broadcast of the show.
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?
