High Court
Gujarat High Court accepts plea against TRAI NTO 2.0 amendments
MUMBAI: The empire strikes back even as TRAI has been rubbishing news that NTO 2.0 is detrimental to the industry and will put the brakes on it. Despite repeated representations from different bodies, TRAI is sticking to its guns on imposing pricing regulations. Now the industry is fighting back.
A spate of cases has been filled in different courts in a bid to turn TRAI and the government to its point of view. Earlier broadcasters have appealed at the Bombay and Madras High Courts and now they have filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court. Sources say that a few more petitions will be filed in different courts.
The Gujarat High Court accepted a petition filed by broadcasters challenging the new tariff order for the broadcast sector by TRAI. Hearing the petition, Justice AY Kogje of the Ahmedabad bench of the Gujarat High Court issued notices to the Union of India and TRAI, asking them to file replies by 3 February, failing which the high court would grant interim relief to the petitioners.
Petitioners named Somabhai Makwana, Nidhi Jani, Bharat Thakore, and Falguni Shah in their petition have stated that the tariff order issued by the regulatory body is beyond the powers under Section 11(2) of the TRAI Act and is conflicting with the provisions of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
On 1 January this year, TRAI had issued amendments to its tariff order for the broadcast sector, which received huge criticism from broadcasters and distribution operators alike.
According to the petitioners, fixation of the network capacity fee (NCF) of Rs 130 per month per subscriber is not based on any intelligible material, and the criteria for determining the proposed amount lacks transparency.
The case is ongoing in the Bombay High Court as well. In the previous hearing held on 14 January, the Bombay HC bench consisting of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice RI Chagla had directed TRAI to file a reply in one week. They, in fact, had also refused to put a stay on the amendments pertaining to the new regulatory framework.
Key amendments proposed by the broadcasters include the reduction of MRP cap to Rs 12, implementation of twin conditions on bouquet pricing, and other being the discount on channel bouquets to around 33 per cent.
Earlier, Sun TV Network moved Madras High Court challenging the amendments to the new regulatory framework. The case will be heard on 4 February. Hearing the matter, the division bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad also issued notices to the Union of India and TRAI.
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?
