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In March 2013 the MIB granted provisional registration to Kal Cables which has now been revoked and has asked the MSO to wind up operations within 15 days.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 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.
