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 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.
