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 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.
