High Court
HC reserves order on CAS petition
NEW DELHI: CAS might have moved one step nearer to implementation with the Delhi High Court yesterday reserving its verdict on a case filed by some MSOs after the government explained its stand on addressability.
The court had asked the government whether a central law — on CAS — could be kept in suspended animation forever. The government yesterday submitted a written submission explaining its position.
“It is extremely important to examine the entire issue, in a holistic manner, in order to safeguard the consumers’ interests and facilitate the consumers to make an informed choice. In case the CAS is implemented in the pre-suspended form in Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata, the problems faced in implementation are likely to remain unaddressed,” the Centre said in its synopsis filed through counsel Rajive Mehra, according to a report by the Press Trust of India (PTI).
Hathway Cable Datacom, INCablenet and RPG had filed a case in the Delhi HC seeking direction to the Centre to implement CAS for viewing satellite TV channels in the country.
The petitioner had also pleaded that government inaction has resulted in financial losses to the MSOs who had invested in infrastructure for addressability.
Seeking time till 31 December, 2005 to examine Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s recommendations and arrive at the final decision, the government submission said, “The actual implementation would have its own timeframe, which is difficult to predict at this stage and will depend on the content of the final policy decision by Competent Authority.”
The Centre also talked of Direct-to-Home (DTH) service, saying “the consumers are likely to have an alternative addressability on cable networks through DTH service” as private companies were being issued licences for DTH service, the PTI report stated.
Earlier, the court had asked the government to either implement the law (Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act) or abrogate it. “Statute has prescribed it and you must implement it,” the court had observed.
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?
