High Court
Tata Sky seeks to amend its writ petition against TRAI in the tariff order case
MUMBAI: The direct-to-home (DTH) platform Tata Sky has sought to amend the writ petition which was filed earlier before the Delhi High Court against the new tariff order introduced by The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Alongside the ongoing case, Tata Sky seeks to amend the present petition by adding a challenge to the new amendments which was brought by the regulatory body at the beginning of 2020.
Tata Sky has mentioned that following amendments are “arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and seek to be expropriatory”.
The petitioner has submitted that the reduction of Network Capacity Fee (NCF) is irrational and unreasonable as it does not ensure reasonable profit to the DTH platform. According to the petitioner, the TRAI has not carried out any tariff determining exercise before making the amendment regarding NCF.
TRAI has also reduced the chargeability of the NCF in respect of every additional television to only 40 per cent of the original NCF, in a "multi-tv household". It has also asked to reduce the carriage fee chargeable by a DPO against a new television channel from 20 paisa for Standard Definition (SO) per channel per month for a penetration upto 5 per cent, to a cap of maximum Rs 4 lakh for SD Channels. Such caps are also prescribed for HD Channels.
“Through the capping of the Price of a Pay-Channel which could be put into a bouquet, the Distribution Fees available to the DPO has also been unreasonably and irrationally reduced,” the petitioner submitted. It also added that the amendment would reduce the capability of a DPO to form bouquets of channels which are priced above Rs 12 by the broadcaster. Moreover, a compulsory free carriage of Doordarshan channels has also been mentioned as unreasonable.
“The Petitioner submits that the Impugned Amendments 2020 reduce the revenue generated by the Petitioner No.1 in such manner that even the basic right of the Petitioner to recover the basic cost of its network has been negated. The Petitioner submits that during the course of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent has failed to prove, establish or even display the advantages of the 2017 Regime,” it says.
Hence, Tata sky has sought to make additional grounds which may be allowed to be included in the main writ petition. According to the company, the impugned amendments 2020 do not take into account relevant matters and takes into account irrelevant issues like foreign consumers to subscribe television channels on the ala-carte basis by making bouquet of channels expensive. The DTH network is thus being made available to the consumer in such manner that it would not be able to even recover its operational or capital costs.
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?
