High Court
HC restricts TRAI from taking coercive action against Kalaignar TV
MUMBAI: Most of 2013 kept the industry preoccupied with the 12 minute ad cap saga. After the Supreme Court passed a judgment that barred the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) from looking at appeals against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulations, the appeals were then moved to the Delhi High Court.
And the latter passed an interim order that forbade the TRAI from taking any coercive action against channels that had appealed in the HC, even if they did not adhere to the 12 minute per hour limit.
Now, the Tamil GEC run by political party, DMK, Kalaignar TV has got a favourable order from the HC after it also appealed against the TRAI regulation. The HC has asked the regulator not to take any coercive action against the channel and has asked the latter to submit to it weekly ad duration data.
In December, many channels had moved the court who were then given a hearing date of 13 March 2014. Kalaignar TV’s writ petition will also be heard along with the others on the same date. The channel was also a part of the list of appeals that had come up before the TDSAT but were told to move it to the Delhi HC after the SC judgement.
TRAI had passed a quality of service regulation for limiting advertising air time to 12 minutes per hour in mid-2013.
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?
