High Court
Gujarat HC adjourns TRAI DAS order till 13 December
MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the central government and the Gujarat state government has time until 13 December to submit their responses to the Gujarat High Court. The three parties were dragged to court by the Gujarat Cable Operators Association (GCOA) on issues associated to the digitisation process.
 |
| The Court adjourned the case since the lawyers representing the MSOs did not turn up for the hearing, says Pramod Pandya |
The court hearing which took place on 6 December was adjourned till 13 December as the lawyers representing the multi-system operators (MSOs) were not present at the court hearing. “It was TRAI that made MSOs a party in the case. The Court adjourned the case since the lawyers representing the MSOs did not turn up for the hearing,” said Gujarat Cable Operators Association president Pramod Pandya.
Earlier, GCOA had filed a petition to the HC, challenging the legality of Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Tariff and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations. After this, in its hearing on 13 November, the Court had asked the TRAI and government to declare the reasons for formulating the existing laws pertaining to tariff and interconnection.
Pandya had earlier told Indiantelevision.com that the TRAI aims to remove the local cable operators. “We have challenged all the notifications passed by TRAI. This includes revenue share, consumer application forms (CAFs) and billing,” he said.
The parties were given 15 days to submit their responses; however, it’s almost a month now since the first Court hearing took place. “We are hopeful that the HC will come out with its judgment on 13 December hearing,” he concluded.
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?
