High Court
No stay order for Kantar for now: Delhi HC
NEW DELHI: It was just a week ago that one of the shareholders of TAM – Kantar Market Research decided to move the High Court against the TV ratings guidelines. Now, as the case was taken up in the Delhi High Court today, the issue has become a little clearer.
According to the HC, Kantar won’t get a stay order on the petition for now just because the deadline to make the TV ratings guidelines is effective from 15 February. However, Judge Manmohan said that Kantar’s case will be heard again on 11 February and a final decision will be taken then.
Counsel for Kantar, Harish Salve argued that the stay order was necessary as the guidelines were not framed under any statute of law. Additional Solicitor General Rajeev Mehra, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, said that the guidelines had been recommended by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) which was a statutory body. The judge also remarked the same. Both Mehra and the counsel for TRAI accepted the notice and agreed to file their affidavits within time.
The other big development in the case was the inclusion of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also coming as an intervener and joining the case as the third respondent apart from the Union of India and the TRAI. NBA counsel, A J Bhambhani pointed out that TAM only covered about 8000 homes in India, which doesn’t cover all the TV homes and thus isn’t a complete survey.
Interestingly, the judge curious to know why instead of TAM approaching the court, a stakeholder Kantar has taken the step. To this, Salve said that the move was taken as Kantar is a major shareholder in TAM and the guideline related to cross holding affects Kantar and not TAM.
Responding to a question posed by the judge, Salve said that TAM had nothing to gain by pushing up the TRPs. Its clients were advertisers and broadcasters and not the common viewer. Any rigs in ratings would be strongly protested against, he said. Salve also brought to the fore that regulations or guidelines need to be placed before the Parliament for approval.
The case will now be heard once again on 11 February with Kantar fighting it out against the government, TRAI and the NBA.
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?
