High Court
IBF asked to file affidavit in Kantar case; matter put off to 12 May
NEW DELHI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) was today formally impleaded in the Kantar case in Delhi High Court and asked to file its affidavit in the matter.
Thereafter, Kantar Market Research will file its rejoinder and the matter has been fixed by Justice Rajiv Shakder to 12 May.
The case had been filed by Kantar Market Research challenging the Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India, and in particular on the clause relating to cross-media ownership. The matter had come up last in September 2014.
Meanwhile, the interim order on the case will continue that will allow Kantar’s subsidiary TAM Media Research to publish ratings till the verdict on the case is out.
Although TAM and Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) were the only two applicants under the guidelines as of December 2013, TAM has still not received any response from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on its application.
The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) has been impleaded early in the case in favour of the guidelines.
While declining to stay the Guidelines in February last year, Justice Manmohan had stayed sections 16.1 and 16.2 of the Guidelines, thus giving freedom to TAM to offer ratings to its clients.
The sections relating to cross-holding, which state that the same company cannot hold shares in both TRP companies and the media are 1.7a and 1.7d.
Kantar had argued that any action relating to Fundamental Rights had to be done through an act of Parliament and not by an executive order. Any attempt to regulate television rating agencies was tantamount to interfering with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), it had argued.
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.
