High Court
HC seeks detailed govt order on Care World India’s week-long ban
NEW DELHI: The Bombay High Court today said the Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s order imposing a one-week ban against Care World India TV is not a ‘speaking order’ as it does not give details of the violations by the channel.
In view of this, Justice M S Karnik said that the Ministry should withdraw the show cause notice to the channel and issue a fresh order detailing violations. It gave time to the counsel for the Government to get instructions and inform the court by 30 November 2016.
Earlier, the court had extended the stay on the ministry order last week, after the TV channel informed the court that it wanted to amend its petition. The channel was required to satisfy the Court by today as to what amendments it wants to make.
Seven Star Satellite Pvt Ltd counsel Mayur Khandeparkar told the court in the last hearing on 8 November that a show-cause had been issued to the channel which had also been given a hearing by the Inter-Ministerial Committee, but the final order indicated that none of the arguments given by the channel had been taken into consideration and “therefore it is not a reasoned order”.
The ban had been put on the channel Care World from the midnight of 9 November to midnight of 16 November 2016.
Khandeparkar also said that the programme ‘Kya Karun main ab’ against which the ministerial order had come had already been taken off air and subsequent episodes would only come subject to the final order of the Court.
The judge also said in his order that the channel would not be permitted broadcast of this programme till its interim order was vacated.
Also read: Stay on Care World TV ban extended till 28 November
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
