High Court
HC grants partial reprieve to Go 92.5 FM
MUMBAI: Reprieve has come hours before the last date for payment of license fees by private FM stations falls due on Friday.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday has stayed the encashment of the bank guarantee of Go 92.5, a Mid-day enterprise till 14 June 2004. It has however directed the radio station to pay up 50 per cent of the license fees within 14 days of the court order, says station head Sharique Patel.
For Go, the half amount of the license fee amounts to just over Rs 10 million, as the station is being billed for two months, as it had given notice of operations till 28 June.
The Entertainment Network promoted Radio Mirchi, which had filed a similar petition two weeks ago, was turned down last week, but was supposed to come up for hearing today, the results of which are awaited.
Meanwhile, the Sun Network promoted Suryan FM, got the encashment of the bank guarantee stayed by the Madras High Court on Wednesday. The high court, while granting an interim stay, observed that since the matter of licence fee is pending with the central government for a final decision, an interim stay is granted barring the government from encashing the bank guarantee in case Suryan FM did not pay the fee.
The last date for payment of the license fees by the private players was 29 April, following which a grace period of seven days was allowed. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s recommendations that the fees be deferred was referred by the information and broadcasting ministry to the finance ministry, which refused to comment on the matter.
The I&B ministry, which referred the matter on Wednesday to the Election Commission, was told that deferment of the fees would amount to a breach of the election code of conduct.
The Bombay high court judgment today has come as a breather to the radio stations, although each is awaiting an individual verdict in the courts.
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?
