High Court
Madras HC declines stay on TRAI tariff order
MUMBAI: The Madras High court rejected the interim prayer plea in a petition filed by Chennai Metro Cable TV (CAS) Operators Association declining to stay the implementation of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (TRAI) tariff order. Justice S Vaidyanathan issued notice to TRAI as well as posted the matter to 3 January for further hearing.
The cable TV association’s petition was against two notifications on the new regulations issued through media releases on 19 November and 18 December fixing December 29 as the deadline for implementing the new regime. They sought to quash the two notifications along with an interim stay on the implementation of the regulations.
The regulatory body’s council submitted that the matter was already raised before the Supreme Court. Moreover, now TRAI itself has given additional one month for smooth transition allowing consumers to choose the plan till 31 January.
The objections were first raised by a social activist after the first communication on 19 November, as submitted by the petitioner association. It claimed that TRAI, without considering the objections, passed the second release specifying the deadline.
Under the new regime consumers have to choose channels and local cable operators will have to collect the required fees. The petition claimed this arrangement unworkable. It also claimed it would curtail the right of consumers to see all channels.
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.
