High Court
‘Karishma’ case transferred to single bench of Calcutta High Court
MUMBAI: The Subrata Roy-promoted Sahara India Media Company has won a temporary reprieve. On Thursday, 22 May 2003, the Supreme Court sent back to the copy-right violation dispute between Barbara Taylor Bradford and the Subrata Roy promoted Sahara TV to the Calcutta High Court. However, the 12 May interim order of the High Court restraining the telecast of the Rs 600 million serial Karishma – The Miracles of Destiny till further notice. The case has been transferred to a single bench of the Calcutta High Court.
On Monday, 19 May 2003, Sahara moved the Supreme Court seeking to take the legal battle back to the Calcutta High Court to fight a suit filed by New York-based novelist Barbara Taylor Bradford alleging that mega serial Karishma ..was an unauthorised copy of her popular novel A Woman of Substance.
Sumit Roy, head of Sahara’s media and entertainment business, refused to comment on the developments saying the case was “sub-judice”. But sources close to the company had told indiantelevision.com, “Sahara has decided to fight the case on its merit and it is highly unlikely that it would go in for an out of court settlement with Bradford.”
The mega serial, starring Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor, has been off-air despite airing its first episode on 12 May 2003. The serial has been touted as one of the biggest and costliest serials of Indian television that had the potential of turning round the fortunes of Sahara Manoranjan, a la KBC and Star Network in India.
On 14 May, the Supreme Court had confirmed the stay on the telecast of the mega serial Karishma on the allegation of Bradford that the serial was based on her novel, A Woman of Substance.
The Supreme Court decision on the Special Leave Petition filed by Taylor challenging an order of the Division Bench allowing telecast of the TV soap, is still pending, a Press Trust of India report said today.
The PTI has reported that a vacation Bench comprising Justice N Santosh Hegde and Justice Shivaraj V Patil, before whom the application seeking permission for going back to the single judge bench was mentioned today, posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.
The report adds that the Sahara’s application today used the plea – “on mature consideration and on legal advice” – while stating that it should have accepted one of the suggestion of the Bench on May 14 to go back to the single judge bench of the High Court, which, on 7 May, had restrained the channel from telecasting the serial.
Sahara also suggested that the 12 May order of the division bench of the High Court, allowing the airing of the serial, could also be set aside and the Single Judge Bench be requested to decide the matter expeditiously.
Rejecting Sahara Manoranjan’s pleas for vacation of the 12 May interim order staying the telecast of the serial, the Supreme Court, on 14 May, had continued the stay on airing the serial and also stayed all proceedings before the Kolkata high court, the PTI report stated.
The apex court on 12 May had stayed the high court order giving the go-ahead for telecast of the mega serial on Sahara Manoranjan. The serial was telecast on that day but was suspended a day later.
On Monday, 12 May, a single judge bench of the high court refused to vacate the may seven injunction order restraining the TV channel from airing the serial. The TV channel, then, moved the division bench of the high court in the afternoon and got stay of the injunction order.
Not giving up, Barbara, through her solicitor Mondal, filed an appeal before the vacation bench in the evening and the bench of Justices Hegde and Patil heard the special leave petition at home late in the evening and in an
ex-parte order stayed the airing of the serial.
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.
