High Court
Mumbai HC rules post 1 Jan subscription rate hikes unenforceable
MUMBAI: A two-judge bench of the Mumbai High Court today delivered a ruling that that has major implications on the subscription pricing mechanism instituted by broadcasters ahead of the CAS rollout.
The order, delivered this morning after hearing a public interest litigation filed by BJP MP Kirit Somaiya last month, says that in individual cases of non payment at the old subscription rates of any MSO or cable operator existing as of 31 December 2002, a cable operator will be entitled to disconnect the subscriber.
However, the order clearly states this will not be applicable in the case of subscription rates which have come into effect after 1 January 2003. Ergo, if consumers refuse to pay at the new rates, they cannot be disconnected, the judges ruled.
Ironically, the ruling spells bad news for Somaiya, who must have been hoping to win cache with middle class citizens with an eye on forthcoming elections, in his demand that subscription rates be capped at a maximum of Rs 150.
But worst hit will be the pay-driven broadcasters, all of whom have announced new rate subscription rate cards effective 1 January. Subscribers now need to pay only at the old rate, with all the new pricing now standing nullified.
Stay clued into indiantelevision.com for a detailed report that follows.
See related story –
Somaiya files PIL; Congress shoots of letter to governor
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?
