High Court
HC adjourns Star, Sony case against Trai to 18 Jan
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court bench hearing the case on the issue of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (Trai) constitutional standing to be a regulator was adjourned after a sizeable time spent in hearing the initial arguments from both ESPN and Sony as well as the multi-system operators (MSOs). The issue will come up for hearing again on 18 January.
The MSOs, who are supporting Trai, were represented by Dr Abhishekh Singhvi, CS Vaidyanathan and Aryama Sundaran, whereas the boradcasters’ consel was Soli Sorabjee. ESS and Sony had moved the Delhi HC, challenging Trai’s constiutional standing.
The court heard the initial arguments and felt that since the parties concerned have not completed filingrejoinders and counters the matter may be postponed till the next date.
The case relates to the cable rules empowering Trai as CAS regulator. The High Court is hearing only the constituional issues on the matter and the quantum issues are beig heard by TDAST.
Spokesperson for the MSOs refused to divulge details of the arguments as the matter is subjudice, and the counsel was not available till late evening.
Tomorrow, hearings are slated for three cases in TDSAT. The first is on a appeal by ESPN on the August 24 order Trai of fixing tariff at Rs five per pay channel, and second is also an appeal by ESPN against the Trai order of 24 August on distribution margins for pay channels, which as per the order stand at 45 per cent for broadcasters, 30 per cent for MSOs and 25 per cent for local cable operators. The issue of Cas rule relating to signing of a standard contract is also coming up during this hearing, with the MSOs opposing the ‘forcible’ signing of a contract.
The third case also relates to the same issues, on an appeal filed by Sony Entertainment Television.
The Surpeme Court will hear the final arguments in the case filed by Sea TV, an affiliate of Zee Group based in Agra, on the issue of underdeclaration of the number of households by the cable operators.
Sea TV had applied for access to Star channels two years ago, and the broadcaster had said that they had given access to Moon TV. Sea TV should get the signal from Moon TV, Star had pointed out. However, Zee had intervened saying Sea TV was bound to be given access and had disputed that an MSO (in this case the Moon TV) or an LCO can be an agent of a broadcaster, which was the genesis of the case being heard.
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?
