High Court
Kerala High Court passes interim order on the placement and LCN clause of NTO 2.0
MUMBAI: The Kerala High Court has passed an interim order on the placement and LCN clause in the case of The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)’s tariff order amendment. However, other provisions will be operational.
All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) members moved the Kerala High Court challenging certain provisions of TRAI’s amended tariff order and interconnection regulation earlier. While refusing to issue any interim order on any of the other provisions, the single judge asked AIDCF to file representation before TRAI pointing out objections to amendments. A proper consultative process from TRAI shall follow this step. Till then impugned provisions except the provisions with regards to freezing of placement of channels in perpetuity shall be permitted to be operated.
TRAI said in the amendment:
The channel number once assigned to a particular television channel shall not be altered by the distributor for a period of at least one year from the date of such assignment:
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply in case the channel becomes unavailable on the distribution network:
Provided further that if a broadcaster changes the genre of a channel then the channel number assigned to that particular television channel shall be changed to place such channel together with the channels of new genre in the electronic programme guide.
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?
