High Court
High Court muzzles media against sexual harassment case against ex-judge
NEW DELHI: In a directive that has not been taken kindly by the media, the Delhi High Court yesterday restrained the media from publishing and telecasting the contents of the law intern’s complaint of sexual harassment against former Supreme Court judge Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Ordering deletion of alleged defamatory parts of the news items and the photograph of Justice Kumar within 24 hours, Justice Manmohan Singh, in his interim order, also asked the media not to carry the photographs of Justice Kumar, who is also the National Green Tribunal Chairperson in their future news reports.
“The defendants number 1 to 5 (media houses and the law intern) are further restrained from telecasting and printing the photograph of the plaintiff (Justice Kumar),” the judge said while pronouncing the order in a packed court room.
Interestingly, the Court order came a day after the Supreme Court issued notice to Justice Kumar on a petition filed by the law intern.
The High Court also made it clear that its order will remain effective till 24 February, the next date of hearing, and issued notices to the woman intern, two English news channels, and a leading English daily.
The court had earlier reserved its interim order on the plea of Justice Kumar seeking to restrain media from reporting, publishing or telecasting news relating to the law intern’s complaint against the judge, saying only court proceedings can be reported “nothing more, nothing less”.
The plea had also sought a ban on repeat of the television programmes on the subject.
Justice Kumar has also demanded Rs. 5 crore as damages from the law intern, who made the allegation against him, and three media groups that publicised her complaint.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the former judge, had said Justice Kumar has an “illustrious career spanning 43 years in the legal field as a lawyer and as a high court and the Supreme Court Judge and more over, his fundamental right of good name and reputation cannot be allowed to be blackened by the media.”
The petition has also said, “pass a decree for damages in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant number 1 to 5 jointly and severally at least for an amount of Rs 5 crore only or for any higher amounts as this court may be pleased to determine…”
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?
