High Court
Kantar argues TV ratings regulation requires legislative action
NEW DELHI: Kantar Market Research Services, a promoter of India’s only television ratings agency TAM Media Research, said today that any action relating to fundamental rights had to be done through an act of Parliament and not by an executive order.
Harish Salve, counsel for Kantar, said during the hearing on his client’s petition in the Delhi High Court against regulations for television ratings agencies that the government should have issued an ordinance and then replaced it with an act of Parliament since any attempt to regulate television ratings agencies was tantamount to interfering with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Any order curtailing fundamental rights must have statutory backing, he claimed.
He said even the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India which had earlier given a report on TV ratings in 2008 and the Parliamentary Standing Committee which had considered the issue later in the same year had been of the view that the government could not tamper with the content. In any case, Salve argued that TRAI was only concerned with carriage and not content and can only make recommendations.
He wondered why the Government did not act after it received the TRAI report in 2008 to push through legislation on this issue.
He said the executive order under Article 73 was part of the government’s agenda to push for control of content.
He said there will be a complete blackout of television viewership ratings under new government regulations since the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was still in the planning stage.
He also said that the law was in any case clear that the government was a licensor for broadcasting and not TAM which was a private rating agency. As a private agency, it could not be told not to have cross-media holding.
While still not granting a stay on the regulations that come into effect from 15 February, Justice Manmohan said he will continue hearing the case tomorrow but may consider ‘interim arrangements’ if the hearing lingers on.
The Judge also asked Kantar to place on its website the shareholding pattern of various shareholders in TAM since the primary objection taken by Kantar is to the reference to cross-media holding in the proposed regulations.
The three respondents Union of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) have filed their affidavits and will present their views tomorrow on Kantar’s petition for an interim stay.
Salve, who concluded his arguments today, said Kantar did not have any cross-holding in the broadcasting sector. He claimed that TAM was operational in 37 countries.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who also represented Kantar, said the committee that recommended BARC had itself admitted that TAM was the best rating agency in the country, and had not made any recommendations with regard to cross-media holdings.
During the last hearing, the judge had wanted to know why TAM was not present itself, and Salve said that the issue of cross-media holdings mentioned in the guidelines affected Kantar which was a major shareholder and not TAM.
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.
