High Court
TRAI jurisdiction: IBF plea dismissed, AIDCF impleadment decision on 22 Feb
MUMBAI: Cable operators body may become interveners in the Item 7 case heard last Friday between television broadcasters and TRAI over tariff issues vis-a-vis international and Indian copyright laws in the Madras High Court. Indian Broadcasting Foundation’s plea to be heard in the case was however dismissed with leave to file fresh writ petition, if required.
After Star India and Vijay TV had moved the high court appealing against TRAI’s jurisdiction to draw guidelines over tariff and commercial matters where copyrights was involved relating to content, the regulator had moved the Supreme Court seeking succour.
As far as AIDCF’s impleadment application and that of D2H are concerned, while the judges were convinced that the All India Digital Cable Federation, India’s apex body for digital multi-system operators, could be interveners, whether or not they could be impleaded will be heard in next hearing as, due to paucity of time, their submissions could not be completed. AIDCF president TS Panesar could not be reached.
“There is no speaking order on AIDCF’s intervention yet,” STAR India’s senior VP – legal and regulatory Pulak Bagchi told www.indiantelevision.com. After Supreme Court hears the case on 20 February, it will come up in the Madras High Court, which will decide if AIDCF could implead or intervene, Bagchi said.
The Madras High Court case has now been adjourned to 22 February for further arguments in the impleadment application. The judges also verbally indicated that their writ petition would be heard, and that, if impleaded, counters would need to be filed by AIDCF by 7 March. “We undertook to do so if impleaded,” an AIDCF representative told www.indiantelevision.com.
As reported by www.indiantelevision.com on 1 February, 2017, MSOs had joined issue requesting the Madras High Court to hear their views too. AIDCF has sought to be impleaded in the case and urged the high court — hearing the Star India-Vijay TV case against TRAI over draft tariff guidelines — that, while disposing of the case, it’s viewpoints should also be heard and taken into account.
Sources had indicated that the MSOs had moved the court as they apprehended the viewpoints of distribution platforms of TV services in India, notably the MSOs, may not be heard; especially when they have views that don’t converge with those of the petitioners on all aspects of the petition.
Industry observers had explained that the presence of distributors in the court made the case interesting as the IBF too had urged to be heard. The application of IBF however was yesterday dismissed by the high court with leave to file fresh writ petition, if required. www.indiantelevision.com could not reach IBF for comment and next strategy.
However the apex court, while directing TRAI that it could continue with its regulation-framing exercise and seek its nod before mandating guidelines, observed that the regulatory body should argue its case before the Madras High Court, declining to stay proceedings in the high court.
The high court had asked TRAI to maintain status quo on tariff guidelines till full hearing of the case filed by Star India and Vijay TV.
With regard to the impleadment applications, Ar. L Sundaresan appeared on behalf AIDCF, Vijay Narayan appeared on behalf of D2H and A l Somayaji appeared on behalf of IBF. A counter-affidavit was filed by Vijay TV to AIDCF’s impleadment application.
Sundaresan made submissions in AIDCF’s impleadment application to which Chidambaram objected. The other senior counsel also made submissions in support of their respective impleadment applications which was also objected to.
P. Chidambaram appeared on behalf of one of the petitioners and P.S. Raman appeared for the other. They did not mention in which WP they were appearing in. And, P. Wilson appeared on behalf of the regulator TRAI.
Also Read:
MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC
Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue
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.
