High Court
Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM can continue publishing viewership ratings
NEW DELHI: While declining to stay Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India, the Delhi High Court today directed that the sections relating to cross-holding will not come into force till the conclusion of the petition by Kantar Market Research Services, a shareholder of TAM Media Research, the only television viewership rating agency in India.
Fixing the next date of hearing for 6 March, Justice Manmohan also stayed sections 16.1 and 16.2 of the Guidelines, thus giving freedom to TAM to continue offering its ratings to its clients.
Taking note of the undertaking by Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel for Kantar, the Court said TAM would get another two weeks to get registered as required by the Policy Guidelines.
The Court also took note of the undertaking by Rohatgi that the full list of companies that are associated with TAM and their clients will be placed on the website within two weeks.
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.
The earlier deadline for TAM Media Research to get registered under the Policy Guidelines was 15 February.
When Rohatgi insisted on a stay of the policy guidelines till conclusion of this case, Justice Manmohan and Additional Solicitor General Rajeev Mehra said senior counsel Harish Salve who had argued on behalf of Kantar yesterday had made it clear that he was only fighting the issue of cross-shareholding. In fact, Justice Manmohan said Salve repeated this point at least five times.
Rohatgi had sought to reiterate the point made by Salve that the policy guidelines had been issued through an executive action without any statutory authority of law.
While Rohatgi filed an affidavit today listing companies that have a holding in Kantar, he assured the Judge that the list of clients would also be place shortly on the website and filed in the court.
In his order, the Judge took note of the fact that both Salve and Rohatgi have argued that the guidelines are without the sanction of any statutory body.
Kantar had argued yesterday that any action relating to fundamental rights had to be done through an act of Parliament and not by an executive order.
Salve had said any attempt to regulate television rating agencies was tantamount to interfering with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The provisions of Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India that have been stayed are:
1.7 The company shall comply with the following cross holdings requirements.
(a) No single company/ legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in rating agencies and broadcasters/advertisers/ advertising agencies.
(d) A promoter company/member of the board of directors of the rating agency cannot have stakes in any broadcaster/ advertiser/advertising agency either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings.
16. PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING RATING AGENCIES
16.1 These guidelines shall also be applicable to the existing rating agencies.
16.2 No rating agency shall generate and publish ratings till such time that they comply with the provisions of these guidelines.
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.
