High Court
Kolkata HC puts stay order on Digicable Comm Service’s license cancellation till 29 August
KOLKATA: Granting relief to Digicable Comm Services, the Calcutta High Court has put a stay order on the cancellation of the registration of Kolkata-based multi-system operator (MSOs) till 29 August.
In the order that was passed on 12 August, it states that “The petitioners having been in business for quite some time would suffer irreparable loss and injury, unless appropriate ad-interim protection is granted to them.”
It continues to say, “The operation of the order dated 17/18 July, 2014 shall remain stayed till 29 August 2014”.
Last month, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had cancelled the registration of Digicable.
The Digicable counsel had argued in the court that the MIB had only stated the reason for cancellation of registration as not receiving security clearance from the Home Ministry. However, it did not give the reason for denial of security clearance. The counsel from the ministry side stated that the reason for clearance not being given cannot be disclosed to Digicable for security reasons.
The court also observed that when the company was given the DAS licence in 2013, that was subject to the security clearance from Home Ministry and the same has been denied in the order passed last month. They were subsequently asked to stop operations within 15 days.
Digicable Comm was hopeful that after appealing to the Home Ministry and moving the High Court, the decision would be in favour of the MSO.
The company is a joint venture between Digicable (51 per cent) and Kolkata-headquartered Multicar Group (49 per cent) was formed in the year 2009, to gain the foothold in the West Bengal market.
“We will follow the mandate. We are hopeful that the authorities would consider the minute details presented by us,” said Digicable Comm director Dileep Singh Mehta.
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.
