High Court
HC stays MIB order against Care World
NEW DELHI: Even as NDTV has gone to court and the MIB order against it held in abeyance, the Bombay High Court today stayed the order of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry directing a one-week ban against Care World India.
Justice M S Karnik directed the I&B Ministry to file its reply within two weeks and listed the matter for hearing on 23 November 2016. The order would remain stayed till 24 November.
Seven Star Satellite Pvt Ltd counsel Mayur Khandeparkar told the court 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 argument given by the channel had been taken into consideration and “therefore it is not a reasoned order.”
Care World had been banned since the midnight of 9 November to midnight of 16 November 2016. The order was issued under section 20(2) and 20(3) of the Cable Televisions Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and some provisions of the Uplinking guidelines.
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 be telecast subject to the final order of the court.
The judge also said in his order that the channel would not be permitted to broadcast this programme till its interim order was vacated.
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?
