High Court
HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC
NEW DELHI: The registry of the Supreme Court has finally sent to all the concerned high courts the directive of the apex court for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions’.
Court registry officials told indiantelevision.com that the order of the apex court of early this month had been sent on 16 April. A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that court to fix a date.
The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various high courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.
Earlier, the apex court had accepted the plea of the central government that ‘it would be justand proper for this court to withdraw all those cases pending in different high courtsand transfer the same to Delhi High Court.’
In its order of 1 April, justices V Gopala Gowda and Arjun Mishra had said on the transfer petition filed by the central government that ‘in future, if any case on the same legalquestion is filed before the high court(s), such case(s) shall also be transferred to theDelhi High Court’.
The Supreme Court registry was directed to communicate the order tothe registrar general(s) of the respective high courts for transmitting the records of thecases pending before the respective high courts to Delhi High Court.
The order took on record the fact that the All Sikkim Cable Operators Association
had withdrawn from the High Court of Sikkim. The court also noted that one petitioner, JBM Cable Network, had refused to accept notice but this service would be considered sufficient. Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January written to its counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.
Buit later, the ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one high court gives a stay, another high court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the high court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.
Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.
Meanwhile, cases are pending in the high courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.
In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.
The Bombay High Court had referred in its order to the argument by counsel that the Supreme Court in the Kusum Ingot case had said that if similar circumstances persist in other states, then they can pass an order similar to one passed by an earlier court.
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?
