High Court
Madras HC permits Sun Group’s Suryan FM to participate in auction
MUMBAI: Following the Delhi High Court’s interim order, which permitted Red FM to attend mock auctions for Phase III, a directive has been issued by the Madras High Court, allowing Suryan FM to participate in the actual FM auctions.
With this, Sun Group’s Kal Radio, which runs Suryan FM, will now participate in the auctions. Sun Group earlier challenged the Union Ministry’s decision of not giving the company security clearance, due to which the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry failed to include Sun Group in the pre-bidders list for the Phase III auctions process.
No official statement was issued at the time of filing this report, as the Network is awaiting the hard copy from High Court. Justice M Sathyanarayanan passed the order on the petition filed by the company.
A few days ago, the networks – Digital Radio Broadcasting and Kal Radio, approached the Delhi and Madras High Courts seeking judicial directive on the Ministry’s decision to keep them away from the auctions.
Mock auctions for Phase III are scheduled to take place on 22 and 23 July, 2015, while the actual auction will begin from 27 July, 2015.
P S Raman, senior counsel had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He pointed out that Dayanidhi Maran is not a shareholder in any of these companies, and that he is under serious charges, and not the company or its subsidiaries. The reason for denial by the Ministry was in line with allegations of Dayanidhi Maran’s holding in the companies. Raman also argued that restriction is against the fundamental rights of freedom of expression.
He also stated that there is no clause in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, where there is a mention of security clearance.
The Sun Group counsel also pointed out that Reliance’s Big FM was permitted to take part in the auctions even though the network was under serious charges as well.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan pointed fingers at the group’s promoters facing serious economic offences. According to the Centre, it will not go down well with the people of the country, if the network was permitted to participate in bidding of licenses.
Meanwhile, the final verdict from the Delhi High Court is expected to be revealed on 24 July.
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?
