High Court
No interim court order on telecast issue
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court today refused to pass any interim order in a case filed by Zee Telefilms against the Indian cricket board.
The case, filed last week, came up for hearing today where the judge refused to give any interim relief to any of the parties, setting the next date of hearing on 31 August.
Responding to Zee Telefilms’ petition seeking the quashing of Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI)’s ‘invitation to tender’ (ITT) for telecast and broadcast rights for the next four years, the court had issued notices to the central government and the BCCI.
Today’s developments could mean that the cricket board can accept the bids by interested parties for domestic cricket rights. The last date for submission of bid is 26 August and, according to information available, no broadcaster has yet submitted any quotes preferring to wait and watch the legal developments.
In its petition, Zee has alleged that the eligibility conditions were framed by the BCCI to oust bidders from India.
According to ZTL counsel Pratibha M Singh, the present set of eligibility conditions for ITT was framed by the BCCI in such a manner so as to try to “exclude” the petitioner and/or other Indian television channels and favour ESPN Star Sports.
BCCI had released tenders for the telecast of 120-130 days of cricket between October 2005 to September 2009 last week. The TV tender document contains a three-year experience clause, which effectively rules out Zee from making a bid.
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.
