High Court
TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC
NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India can only regulate the means of transmission and not take any decisions like pricing about the content, Star India contended today.
In his rejoinder in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, Star India counsel P Chidambaram said TRAI was free to regulate the carriage side of broadcasting right up to the consumer.
Chidambaram was speaking after the arguments by TRAI counsel Saket Singh, and intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation counsel A R L Sundaresan and Videocon d2h counsel Vijay Raman.
Chidambaram said that in theory, TRAI could not price even the movie channels.
He said that the petitioners were not licencees under Section 2(1)(e) if the TRAI Act.
Responding to points made by TRAI, he said the reliance to the 2004 judgment pf the Delhi High Court in the Star India vs TRAI case was misplaced. This was because the principles of res judicata estoppel and acquiescence do not apply to the present case since the present petition is challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI itself. Even that judgement had only directed TRAI to freeze and not to fix prices, he contended.
He also said that TRAI was fixing prices genre-wise in the new tariff order and not channel wise.
While Chidambaram referred to the tariff orders of 2004 and 2007, he refrained from speaking about the tariff orders of 2012 and 2014.
He contended that once uplinked, broadcasting was complete and TRAI did not come into the picture in broadcast re-production rights.
Following the completion of his rejoinder, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi will present his rejoinder on behalf of Vijay TV. It is expected that the judges may reserve orders tomorrow.
Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.
Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.
Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.
The orders can be seen at:
http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…
Also Read: Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)
Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed
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.
