High Court
Madras HC stays encashment of Suryan FM’s bank guarantee
NEW DELHI: The Madras high court has stayed encashment of Suryan FM’s bank guarantee by the government, till a final decision is taken on various issues related to FM radio as per recommendations of the broadcast and cable regulator.
The high court, while granting an interim stay, observed that since the matter of licence fee is pending with the central government for a final decision, an interim stay is granted barring the government from encashing the bank guarantee in case Suryan FM did not pay the fee, according to an United news of India report from Chennai.
The licence of the Sun TV-run FM radio station, along with others, became payable on 30 April.
However, a similar plea of Radio Mirchi was not entertained by Mumbai high court recently, while another one filed by Radio Mid-day is pending a hearing at the same court.
The central government is unable to take a decision on deferment of the licence fee till a final view is taken on the issue, as recommended by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, out of fear of attracting censure from the election regulator that is overseeing the conduct of on-going elections for the Lower House of Parliament.
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?
