High Court
Karti told to move petition relating to INX Media in Delhi High Court
NEW DELHI: Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Minister P Chidambaram, will have to go to the trial court or the High Court in Delhi with his petition seeking to quash a Central Bureau of Investigation FIR in a bribery case involving INX Media.
The Madras High Court today said the case does not come under its jurisdiction and the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction in this case.
Karti had moved the court after a Supreme Court order asked him to appear before the CBI in its New Delhi office on 23 August, to help the investigating agency with its probe on the alleged kickbacks that his company, INX Media paid to get clearances from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board.
Karti had told the Supreme Court that he is ready to appear before the agency today itself, but needs protection. While directing him to appear before the CBI, the SC told Karti to carry with him all documents necessary.
The Madras High Court, in an earlier order this month, had stayed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Karti and four others. The Supreme Court had later said that it would review the HC order cancelling the LOC issued by Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).
On 16 May, CBI raided the Chidambaram residence in Chennai, along with 13 other locations in New Delhi, Gurugram, Mumbai and Chandigarh. The raids were regarding a 2007 case in which INX Media had allegedly paid bribes to get an FIPB approval.
While the clearance granted was only for Rs 40 million, the actual foreign investment was reportedly much higher. An FIR was filed against Karti, Indrani Mukherjee and Peter Mukerjea, who owned INX media.
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
