High Court
SC keeps TRAI request on tariff pending till Madras HC completes hearing
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today refused to step in to allow TRAI to issue final broadcast tariff regulations, saying it would wait for the final outcome of a case in Madras High Court on a similar matter. The case in the apex court now has been listed for late March.
TRAI had filed a special leave petition in SC requesting quashing of a Madras HC order stopping it from issuing tariff guidelines till it disposed of a petition filed by Star TV and Vijay TV relating to whether TRAI can frame rules relating to tariff and copyright laws, both Indian and international.
About 10 days back TRAI, as directed by the SC earlier, had submitted in a sealed envelope its final broadcast tariff guidelines seeking permission to notify the same.
The apex court, while directing TRAI that it could continue with its regulation-framing exercise and also argue the matter in the Madras High Court had directed that before mandating any fresh rules, the broadcast and telecoms regulator should seek its permission.
The Madras HC high court had asked TRAI to maintain status quo on tariff guidelines till full hearing of the case filed by Star India and Vijay TV. The court would later this month also hear the case of Indian MSOs’ industry organisation, AIDCF, which had requested to be impleaded in the Star TV and Vijay TV vs. TRAI case and be heard.
Also Read:
MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC
Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue
DAS Phase IV pace slack; MIB to meet Indian STB makers
TRAI jurisdiction: IBF plea dismissed, AIDCF impleadment decision on 22 Feb
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?
