High Court
NTO 2.0 update: Broadcasters conclude their argument before Bombay HC
KOLKATA: As the ongoing legal battle between broadcasters and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI) in Bombay High Court nears its ending, the broadcasters have concluded their argument.
On 18 September, the solicitor general will open for TRAI before the court. TRAI chairman R S Sharma said earlier that non-implementation of NTO 2.0 will bring back discriminatory practices and create a regulatory vacuum. He said that the tariff order has brought the perfect balance between consumer choice and industry benefits.
Sharma mentioned that while it has given new power to the consumers to watch channels of their own choice, it has provided broadcasters the liberty to decide the pricing of their channels, distributors to have an independent source of revenue through network capacity fees.
Earlier during a hearing on 2 September, senior advocate Harish Salve argued that NTO 2.0 contradicts provisions of the Indian constitution that guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
Amid Covid2019 pandemic, TRAI directed the broadcasters on 24 July to comply with the new amendments by 10 August, which created another round of tension and the broadcasters went back to Bombay High Court. The High Court ordered TRAI to not take any coercive action against the stakeholders until the verdict comes out.
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?
