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 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.
