High Court
HC terms Care World TV ‘ban’ as illegal
MUMBAI: The vigilant and democratic courts in India seem to be favouring justice more than regulation. The government apparently has been passing regulatory orders without studying the respective issues well and not doing sufficient homework before pleading their case/s. The Bombay High Court has termed as illegal the order of ministry of information and broadcasting imposing a week-long ban on Care World TV channel.
Terming the order of the union government to prohibit transmission or retransmission of Care World TV channel for a week “completely illegal”, and a breach of elementary principles of natural justice, the court granted interim relief to Care World TV, stating that, till the disposal of the matter, no steps will be taken to implement the ban order. Justice A S Oka observed that, the larger issue of the power of the government of India of prohibiting the telecast of the TV channel, was, prima facie, illegal.
The court held that the wider issue of power of the government to pass such a stern order would have to be looked into.
The directions came recently while a bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and A S Oka was hearing a plea filed by Seven Star Satellite Private that runs the channel. The channel had challenged the 2-November order of the ministry that ordered it to go completely off-air between 9 & 16 November.
The order had stated that its inter-ministerial committee found that the channel had violated the programme code prescribed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act by showing “adult content”. The hearing after the issuance of show-cause notice was given by the IMC but the order was signed by the ministry director.
The lawyer representing the channel said the order recorded that the competent authority had decided to impose the penalty. The show-cause notice dated 26 June, 2015, however, was issued by the director while only the ministry had the powers to issue the order. He added that the show was pulled off-air on 4 November when the ban order was received.
Also Read:
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?
