High Court
MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy
New Delhi: Doordarshan and all private channels were today asked by the Information and Broadcasting ministry to comply with the directive of the Delhi High Court not to telecast or publicise in any manner the film Kya Kool Hain Hum 3.
Justin Vipin Sanghi had passed the order earlier this year on a petition by Balaji Motion Pictures against WWW.1337.YOOTORRENT.COM and others barring them “from communicating, making available, distributing ,duplicating, displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie Kya KoolHai Hum 3 in any manner whatsoever without obtaining prior license from the plaintiff or in any other manner that would infringe the plaintiffs copyright in the said cinematograph film through any medium whatsoever.”
Thirty-six other defendants were directed to ensure compliance of the order by the other defendants.
The ministry directive dated 14 March was addressed to News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Indian Broadcasting Foundation Association of Regional Television Broadcasters of India, all TV Channels, all MSOs, and all FM Stations.
In the petition, Balaji had said that release of any material or the film itself would lead to colossal losses to the company.
Balaji impleading 300 defendants of which 1 to 203 are websites allegedly engaged in the business of uploading content. The plaintiff apprehends that the said websites may even upload unlicensed copy of the plaintiffs film Kya Kool Hai Hum3, of which the plaintiff claims to be the producer and copyright holder. defendants no.204 to 238 are Internet Service Providers (ISP), who are engaged in the business of providing basic telephony, mobile services and broadband network all over the world and are covered by the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as Copyright Act, 1957 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).
The Ministry of Communication & Information Technology has been impleaded as defendant no.239. The plaintiff stated that defendants no.204 to 239 have been impleaded so that the orders that may be passed by the court may be implemented by them by blocking the infringing URLs of websites such as defendants no.1 to 203. Defendants no.240 to260 and 260-274 are Multi System Operators (MSOs) and cable operators governed by the Cable Network RegulationAct 1995 and the TRAI Act. The plaintiff stated that various MSOs and cable operators, including in Delhi could be engaged in unauthorised unlicensed production and broadcast, on their local channels and through other means, of various pirated contents, including cinematograph films through their cable network. The apprehension of the plaintiff was that the said defendants may indulge in broadcast of the aforesaid copyright of the plaintiff, which at the time of the court order of 19 January was yet to be released (on 22 January) and Balaji apprehends will infringe the copyright m the aforesaid cinematograph film.
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.
