High Court
Madras HC denies stay on Kal Cables’ licence cancellation by MIB
MUMBAI: As soon as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) came out with an order cancelling the registration of Kal Cables, the company run by the Maran group moved the Madras High Court challenging the order.
The petition contends that there was no notice issued to it before cancellation. While the petitioner was seeking to squash the order, the interim prayer was to provide a stay on it. The court denied the stay and said that the 15 day deadline for winding up operations will continue. However it has stayed the MIB’s directive to put a scroll on its network informing them that the service will be cut and asking them to move to other MSOs.
The petition from Kal Cables managing director Vittal Sampathkumaran states that following the insertion of Rules 11A to 11F in the Cable Television Network Rules 1995, it had applied for grant of registration to operate as MSO in digital addressable system (DAS) areas in November 2012.
In March 2013 the MIB granted provisional registration to Kal Cables which has now been revoked and has asked the MSO to wind up operations within 15 days. The registration was denied on the grounds of denial of security clearance. However, Kal says that there has been no change in its business operations, and hence this is no cause for denial of licence.
The court has asked the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to submit its report on why the clearance was denied. Counsel for MHA said that the document was confidential and could be provided only by Tuesday, 2 September.
Kal Cables runs Sumangli Cable Vision that has operations mainly in Chennai.
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?
