High Court
Tata Sky’s final arguments in TRAI tariff order matter listed for 19 July by Delhi HC
MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of the petition of top DTH operators Tata Sky, Airtel Digital TV and Sun Direct, and broadcaster Discovery India Communication challenging Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and its new tariff regime to 19 July. according to sources close to the development, he DTH player Tata sky will conclude its argument on the same day.
During the hearing on 2 May, the regulatory body argued partly in the court. Before that, the last two hearings held on 11 April and 25 April were adjourned without any significant development.
In the beginning of April, Discovery India concluded its arguments. The matter is being heard by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameswar Rao.
Notably, the extended deadline for consumer migration under the new regime expired on 31 March. While TRAI has repeatedly said most consumers have moved to the new regulatory framework with a reduction in cable bills, several reports have claimed otherwise. In the last two weeks, TRAI also sent directives to several distribution platform operators across the country for not complying with tariff order rules properly.
Earlier in February, the regulatory body extended the deadline to pick channels under the new regime till 31 March as well as gave a directive of Best Fit Plans. The subscribers that don’t opt for new channels would be moved to ‘Best Fit Plans’, which would be developed as per usage pattern, language and channel popularity, the sector regulator said in its statement.
Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Rajendra Menon on 13 February questioned TRAI for altering the implementation process of its new tariff regime without informing the court. The chairperson of the sector regulator had also been directed to file an affidavit within a week explaining these changes.
While the regulatory body has continuously declined that cable bills would go up under the new regime, several reports, as well as surveys, have indicated the hike in the monthly bill. Due to the change in pricing, many experts predicted that consumers would shift to OTT platforms eventually. To decrease the churn rate, some of the DTH players have removed network capacity fee for long duration packs.
In 2017, Bharti Telemedia, Tata Sky and Discovery Communications 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 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?
