High Court
IBF files writ petition against TRAI in Bombay High Court
MUMBAI: Amid the ongoing dispute in the broadcasting industry regarding amendments to the tariff order, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), along with other broadcasters, has filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
“The petition under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India has been filed praying, for a writ, order or direction quashing the amendments carried out vide the telecommunication (broadcasting and cable) services interconnections (addressable systems) (second amendment) regulations, 2020 along with the telecommunication (broadcasting and cable) services standards of quality and consumer protection (addressable systems) (third amendment) regulations, 2020 along with the telecommunication (broadcasting and cable) services (eighth) (addressable systems) tariff (second amendment) order, 2020 issued by the respondent (TRAI) on 1 January,” the petition read.
According to industry sources, the hearing of the case will come up tomorrow.
In the beginning of this month, the industry regulator modified certain provisions (described as impunged provisions ) of the new price regime which was implemented last year. TRAI prescribed twin conditions on pricing –
· The sum of the a-la-carte rates of the pay channels (MRP)forming part of a bouquet shall in no case exceed one and half times the rate of the bouquet of which such pay channels are a part
· The a-la-carte rates of each pay channel (MRP),forming part of a bouquet, shall in no case exceed three times the average rate of a pay channel of the bouquet of which such pay channel is a part.
The authority also decided that only channels with MRP of Rs 12 or less will be permitted to be part of the bouquet offered by the broadcasters.
How the amendments can harm the broadcasters’ business as well as consumer interest :
The petitioners have mentioned that the amendments which has been notified in “consumer interest” will have exactly the opposite effect, leading to crippling of the business of broadcasters and ultimate suffering to the consumer.
It has also been mentioned that such crippling of the business would ultimately result either in closing down of the broadcasters’ channels or in diminishing the quality and the quantity of content available on TV channels to the consumer. In addition to that, the petitioners would lead in compelling the broadcasters to offer their channels only in a-la-carte format.
Additionally, unlike under the 2017 Regulatory Regime, the new provisions prohibit broadcasters from giving any discount on the MRP of any bouquet to the DPO. Hence the broadcasters are of the view that they are completely dis-incentivised from creative bouquet offerings. They think that the new prohibition placed upon the broadcaster from offering a discount on bouquets will result in a huge reduction in DPOs’ demand for broadcaster-created bouquets, resulting, over a period of time, in discontinuation of bouquet offerings by broadcasters.
The writ has been filed broadly to address the following issues:
· A Broadcaster’s freedom of pricing its own content has been taken away/ interfered with by the Respondent, as it continues to place fetters and unrealistic caps on the manner of offering the channels and pricing thereof.
· Despite admission by Respondent that offering of channels through bouquets is the preferred and prevalent practice, even from a subscriber’s viewpoint, the Impugned Provisions have the effect of dismantling and making unworkable any bouquet offering made by the broadcasters, by placement of fetters that have no co-relation to the method or manner of offering content to the subscriber.
· A broadcaster’s effective freedom to price its channel with a view to recover/recoup its every increasing investment into content creation, is being taken away. The earlier imposed cap that prohibited any channel priced at more than Rs 19, as per the 2017 Interconnection Regulations and 2017 Tariff Order, has now been unilaterally and arbitrarily reduced to Rs.12 by the Impugned Provisions.
· A broadcaster’s freedom to offer its channels as part of one or more bouquets, has effectively been taken away, by prohibiting the broadcaster from offering any discount on the Maximum Retail Price of its bouquets; and further, by placing archaic and unworkable conditions to be followed by a broadcaster while creating a bouquet.
· At the same time, the Delivery Platform Operator (“DPO”) has been given further freedom to offer channels as part of bouquet and to give discounts on bouquet prices, by unilaterally reducing the price of the channel received by the DPO from the broadcaster, has been kept intact and in fact, strengthened.
· A Broadcaster has effectively been prohibited from offering, as part of any bouquet, Niche channels, including sports channels, whose content consists of expensive and exclusively licensed rights to broadcast sporting events.
To address the issues, IBF on Friday also held a press conference in Mumbai. The broadcasters of India came in support of each other under the shelter of IBF to voice their concerns against the new TRAI amendments of the new tariff order. All the top bosses of the major networks have agreed to the fact that this revision is going to leave severe adverse affect on all the players. The industry may explore legal options to fight the disruption.
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.
