High Court
HC to deliver order on ‘Kanhaiya’ Wednesday
MUMBAI: Zee’s Kanhaiyya that launched a week late and was again restrained by the court from airing its second episode last Sunday, should have a final order out on the case tomorrow.
The high court judge hearing the case has reserved his ruling till tomorrow.
Kanhaiyya, a weekly family entertainer with dollops of religiosity thrown in, was supposed to play a pivotal role in Zee TV’s plans to spruce up its Sunday morning slot. The project had been stalled earlier after production company Sundial filed a plea before Justice Bobde claiming it had conceptualised the original story idea under the title name Krish Kanhaiyya..
After a week of silence, Zee announced it was going ahead with Kanhaiyya , following what seemed like some sort of agreement between both parties. The show finally launched on 16 March and but failed to air this Sunday.
When asked about the recent developments, a Zee spokesperson confirmed that the production company had stalled the project once again on 22 March, by obtaining a court order. The company however maintains that the Kanhaiyya was Zee’s original concept and dismisses Sundial’s claim by saying any resemblance of the serial to any other programme is purely coincidental.
Meanwhile, Sundial claims that it had first offered the idea to Zee Telefilms who were interested but no agreement could be reached on the financial terms. Subsequently, the project was offered to Sony Entertainment Television and discussions had been underway to slot the series as a half-hour show that would air four days a week.
Sundial further stated that it had already registered the script and idea with the Film Writers’ Association in 2002 and therefore this was a clear case for copyright violation.
A single judge bench of the Mumbai High Court in a ruling delivered on 12 March, prima facie accepted a plea of copyright infringement served against Zee Telefilms, the show’s producer Gulshan Sachdeva and his production company Film and Shots. Justice Bobde, while delivering his ruling, concurred with Sundial’s contention and debarred Zee from developing a similar story line. Zee then moved to a division bench and got stay on the injuction, and screened the first episode on 16 March.
Later however, according to the media reports, there had been a preview arranged for the bench on 21 March. After viewing episodes of both the serial the court vacated the stay on the injunction and restrained Zee from telecasting further episodes.
Point to note: This report had initially stated that Sundial was Star News president Ravina Raj Kohli’s production company. Its director Karthik Menon has clarified that Kohli has no direct or indirect holding, ownership or interest in Sundial Communications Private Ltd.
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?
