High Court
NTO 2.0: Ambiguity persists as arguments continue in Bombay, Kerala High Courts
MUMBAI: Ambiguity continues in the ecosystem with just one day left for the implementation of new tariff order amendments (NTO 2.0).
On Friday’s hearing in Bombay high Court, no conclusion was reached regarding interim relief. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) will continue its argument on Monday.
According to sources close to the development, TRAI has been directed not to take any coercive step. Although there is no any conclusion yet, a decision will mostly be taken on Monday.
Earlier, broadcasters’ argument was that the entire regime is set to kick in from 1 March. Since it is around the corner, they have moved the court seeking a stay. If they implement it before hearing, the entire petition becomes infructuous.
In response to the argument, TRAI counsel said on Thursday that it’s not the entire amended interim regime that is kicking off from 1 March. The TRAI counsel added that broadcasters’ obligation to declare new prices became effective from 15 January, but they did not make any progress on it without any stay order. If they declare prices, then only other stakeholders in the industry will be able to comply with the regime, as TRAI noted.
The Bombay High Court also asked TRAI to take instructions on deferment of NTO 2.0 as they did for the 2017 regime before the Madras High Court on Wednesday. After TRAI expressed its unwillingness to defer NTO 2.0, the hearing on interim stay started on Thursday.
In another case, the Kerala High Court has passed an interim order directing the TRAI not to take steps that are detrimental to the interest of the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) members. Although on Friday’s hearing no judgement was passed for interim relief, the decision of interim protection has been reserved.
In another development, Discovery has moved its petition to Delhi High Court which was heard today. The next hearing for the petition has been scheduled for 19 March.
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?
