High Court
Madras HC TRAI-Star case: All parties keep options open
MUMBAI: Even as till late evening yesterday all those connected with the case filed by Star India and Vijay TV against regulator TRAI in Madras High Court kept waiting for the full text of the court order, options for future course of action were kept open, including whether the high court should be asked to clarify on some observations.
As the high court, by keeping its final verdict on hold, has given two weeks time to petitioners to consider appealing in the Supreme Court, which is already in summer vacation mode with just the vacation bench active, TRAI also cannot go ahead and get its tariff order implemented immediately.
Justice MM Sundresh, who was assigned to hear the Star TV and Vijay TV vs. TRAI case after another bench had given a split verdict, concurred with the view of Madras HC chief justice Indira Banerjee who, through an order dated 3 March 2018, had held that the TRAI Act confers upon the regulator sufficient jurisdiction to notify the said tariff order and interconnection regulation.
However, the judge also, reportedly, struck down some other aspects of the tariff order, including an important part that capped at 15 per cent the discounts that could be offered by TV channels.
That all stakeholders in this court drama are keeping their cards close to the chest can be gauged from the fact the only organisation to come out with an official statement welcoming the Madras HC order, AIDCF (All India Digital Cable Federation), too had nothing to offer on a time frame for implementation of TRAI tariff order. Efforts made to elicit responses from Star India, TRAI, Indian Broadcasting Foundation or even individual media industry players drew a blank. The common refrain was: we haven’t read the actual order, so can’t comment.
Still, after talking to various people in the industry a possible scenario that emerges hinges around petitioners going back to the Madras HC seeking clarifications on some of the observations of the court, which may take some time. After those clarifications come through, it would be decided whether to exercise the option of appealing in the Supreme Court, especially because a major pivot of the case is the copyright of TV channels over the content it generates and whether TRAI has any jurisdiction over such copyright issues.
With the present TRAI Chairman RS Sharma’s tenure ending in a few months time, he would ideally like to see the tariff order, issued during his tenure, implemented before his superannuation.
Also Read:
Third Madras high court judge gives TRAI tariff order thumbs up
Madras HC gives split verdict in Star India versus TRAI case
MSOs move Madras HC seeking relief on inter-connect pacts
Orders reserved by Madras HC on TRAI jurisdiction case
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?
