High Court
Tata Sky vs TRAI: DTH operator concludes arguments; Delhi High Court lists case for 8 February
MUMBAI: The next hearing of the direct-to-home operator Tata Sky’s ongoing legal battle, in which Discovery, Bharti Telemedia-owned Airtel Digital TV and Sun Direct are a part, with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI) and its new tariff regime, has been scheduled for 8 February.
On Monday, after senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing Tata Sky, concluded his arguments including legal submissions, Discovery India Communication’s counsel Gopal Jain laid the foundation for his arguments, which are expected to be concluded during the next hearing.
The regulator informed the court that the new tariff order has already been implemented from 1 February.
Earlier the TRAI had offered an extension till 31 January to the distribution platform operators (DPOs) for implementation.
On 24 January, the Harit Nagpal-led company finally unveiled the new pricing of channels and packs after it was served a show-cause notice by the TRAI.
TRAI's show-cause notice said, "Tata Sky has failed to provide options to its 17.7 million subscribers in compliance with the new framework to exercise their choices for TV channels. Tata Sky has put its subscribers in a situation of great difficulty despite no fault of theirs by not complying with the provisions of the new regulations and the tariff order.”
Despite the delay in announcing channel prices, Tata Sky MD and CEO Nagpal is confident that his team can complete the tricky task of implementing the new norms within a relatively short span of time.
“Tata Sky has always been compliant to regulatory requirements. We have gone live with our modes of communication across the Tata Sky website, Tata Sky mobile app and also equipped the dealers that subscribers can reach out to. We were confident that we would be able to complete the task in 1 week’s time. Hence we used this time to a seamless and smooth transition for all our subscribers. We have ensured that choosing channels and packs is as easy as 1, 2, 3 for any subscriber,” the veteran executive said.
On 29 January, Calcutta High Court stayed the cable switchover till 18 February. The court’s directive was a result of 80 cable operators from the city filing a petition against the TRAI mandate. However, the high court later vacated the stay.
The petitioners’ lawyer Debabrata Saha Roy argued that the revenue-sharing model under the new regime will significantly reduce the cable operators’ share to just nine per cent. With 80% will go into the broadcasters’ kitty, MSOs stand to get just 11 per cent, thus making it an unsustainable business proposition for operators.
In 2017, Bharti Telemedia, Tata Sky and Discovery Communication India had filed petitions against TRAI, challenging its tariff order and the interconnect regulations.
Unlike the position adopted by Star India wherein it questioned the regulatory powers of TRAI, the matter in the Delhi HC questions the regulator’s power to wipe out deals that operators enter into to fix commissions and rates for customers.
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.
