High Court
Star-TRAI case suffers as another judge withdraws in Madras HC
MUMBAI: The TRAI tariff standoff with Star India, which is pending before the Madras High Court, seems to have hit another roadblock.
It has been learnt that another judge — Justice Govind Rajan — on Monday recused himself from the case. Star India SVP – legal and regulatory Pulak Bagchi confirmed while speaking to www.indiantelevision.com that he has withdrawn citing personal reasons. To a question, Bagchi said that the case may be referred to another bench in 2-3 days.
In the first week of April, the case by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI in the matter of tariff orders took a surprising turn when Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anita Sumanth recused themselves.
Though it was not clear, it appeared that the two judges had received a letter which prompted them to withdraw from the case. The petition had been filed by Star India and Vijay TV under the Copyright Act on the ground that TRAI could not give any directive that will affect the content since that did not fall in its purview.
Meanwhile, counsel opined that, as the pleadings were completed, the new bench will get down to hearing the arguments. Arguments had commenced on behalf of the Union Government until lunch that day and the matter was thereafter adjourned.
Star India and Vijay TV had decided not to press for their pleas for extension of the tariff order following TRAI’s announcement that its tariff regulations which were slated to come into effect on 2 April were being deferred to 2 May 2017.
Now, it is up to the chief justice of the Madras High Court to nominate another bench to hear the case as the recusing judge had written to the CJI that the matter was important and a new bench should be identified on an urgent basis to dispose of the case.
Also Read :
Star – TRAI copyright case: In dramatic turn, Madras HC judges withdraw
Coordinate with registry for mentioning TV tariff matter, says Madras HC CJ
TRAI extends tariff regulations execution date, Madras High court arguments to continue
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?
