High Court
Odhisa HC recognises Ortel’s representation on DAS Phase III; urges MIB to give it two months
MUMBAI: Is another state joining the ranks of those who have asked for – and have been given – time to be able to implement digitisation in Digital Addressable System (DAS) Phase III areas? If initial indications are to be believed, the answer is yes. According to our sources, the Odhisa High Court has directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to act on the representation given by Last Mile Owner (LMO) Ortel Communications.
The LMO had presented various teething issues relating to digitisation, which were leading to delays in meeting the deadline date in Phase III areas, to the MIB. But the ministry, apparently ignored Ortel’s representations. Following which the company approached the Odhisa High Court.
“We are totally in favor of digitisation and are always ready to support it in every possible way. Our petition is not against DAS; our concern is the unavailability of various important aspects, which is proving to be a handicap for us,” asserts a senior company official.
Shortage of set top boxes (STBs) was the main concern in the submitted representation, which also had consumer resistance and capital crisis in it, among others.
“The court recognised the STB drought and has directed the MIB to address the issue in two months’ time. Meanwhile, the court has also directed that no action should to be taken against Ortel before the representation is addressed,” a source present in the court tells Indiantelevision.com.
“This direction of the court is for Ortel communications and its operations, and not an overall Odhisa statement,” clarified the source in the court.
But given the strong hold Ortel has over Odhisa as the main provider of cable TV there, it probably means an extension of the digitisation deadline in the state, say industry sources.
Also read: DAS Phase III stayed in 5 states including Maharashtra
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?
