High Court
Hearing to end next week in Madras HC on Star India challenge to TRAI Tariff order
NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court was today told by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India counsel Saket Singh the reasons for moving from analogue to digital and the necessity of the new tariff order.
Concluding his arguments in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, Singh said digital addressable system had led to greater transparency leading to the subscriber base going up, which led to higher advertising revenue.
While adjourning the matter for 17 July, the Court indicated that arguments will commence on behalf of intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation and Videcon d2h. This will be followed by rejoiner arguments by the petitioners, after which the court will reserve its orders.
Singh said the aim was to create level playing field for rates to distributor platforms and give an effective and informed choice to the consumer.
The new tariff had asked broadcasters to declare their minimum retail price per channel to consumers and give a la carte price for pay channels. This would give greater cChoice to consumer.
The bench asked why HD and SD cHannels could not be regulated in the same bouquet. Singh also wondered why broadcasters are using this as one of the contentions as they themselves during the consultation process wanted HD and SD to be separated. They had also said so in their responses to the consultation paper on the subject.He said that the channels at that stage had only wanted the free-to-air and pay channels to be in separate boiuquets.
Singh showed to the court the broadcasters comments during consultation process.
He said prior to the tariff order, broadcaster would sell distribution right to multi-system ioperators at wholesale prices level and MSOs would accordingly sell to the consumers. Thus the consumer had no direct link to pricing.
The new tariff had taken away the power of distributors in terms of pricing and that has been given to the broadcaster. Hence they are the master of their channel and can price the consumer accordingly.
The consumer also got the right to refuse to pay for channels he did not watch. Singh also explained the concept of carriage fee.
Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.
The hearing had commenced with the pleadings of counsel for the petitioners.
Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.
In the hearing in April-end, it had said Section 3 of the Tariff order and all other consequences of such implementation/enforcement would be subject to the outcome of the main petition.
Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.
The orders can be seen at:
http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…
Also Read
Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)
Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed
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.
