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 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.
