High Court
Prasar Bharati moves Delhi HC against deferred live telecast
NEW DELHI: A day after terrestrial broadcaster Doordarshan was granted “deferred live” telecast rights to the ongoing cricket series between India and the West Indies, Prasar Bharati approached the Delhi High Court again on the matter.
A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court has listed for tomorrow arguments in the appeal filed by the pubcaster against the order yesterday by a single-judge directing Nimbus, the rights holder for BCCI organized cricket events in India, to give the feed to Doordarshan with a seven-minute time lag.
Prasar Bharati sources told Indiantelevision.com that the pubcaster’s appeal was based on the validity of the Uplink-Downlink Guidelines issued in November 2005 that perforce allows DD to get the telecast feed. The pubcaster’s argument is that the guidelines are clear that the live feed should be given to both Doordarshan and AIR and that there is “no provision (in the guidelines) for a deferred telecast.”
Prasar Bharati has contended that viewers in the country cannot be divided into two segments and that there has to be equitable distribution of signals for all viewers, irrespective of whether they are linked to DTH, cable or non cable homes.
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.
