High Court
TRAI jurisdiction: Madras HC yes to MSOs as interveners, no as impleaders
NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: The Madras High Court yesterday gave concession to the MSOs allowing them to intervene on matters of law under consideration. But, the court refused to let them implead, via AIDCF, in a case filed by broadcasters (content generators) challenging whether regulator TRAI can have jurisdiction over commercial issues relating to copyright of content.
Both sides — petitioners Star TV and Vijay TV and All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) — viewed the court stand as a moral victory.
Star TV and Vijay TV had moved the Madras High Court pleading that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India’s broadcast carriage and telecoms regulator, didn’t have jurisdiction to issue guidelines that had a bearing on tariff of content, both TV and film, especially if such issues were also governed under the copyright law.
In an official statement, AIDCF said the court was “pleased to permit AIDCF to participate in the proceedings as (an) intervener” allowing it to “file all relevant material, make oral submissions and file written submissions in the main writ petition.”
The AIDCF statement, quoting organisation president and Hathway video division CEO TS Panesar, said, “We are delighted to note the decision of the Madras High Court in recognising us as an important stakeholder in this matter.”
A source close to the petitioners, however, described the court’s decision as “disallowing” MSOs to directly implead in the main writ petition, the same way as it had not allowed Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) to implead itself in the case. “AIDCF can only intervene on the main matters of law under consideration, which is whether TRAI has jurisdiction over copyright issues relating to content,” the source opined.
TRAI, which has been trying to bring about semblance of order in the broadcast and cable sector in India via various guidelines, could not be reached for comments by indiantelevision.com till the time of writing this report. However, TRAI chairman RS Sharma had told indiantelevision.com in an year-end interview in December 2016 that the regulator’s main aim behind issuing draft guidelines relating to broadcast and cable tariff, quality of service and interconnection was to reduce litigation amongst stakeholders and create a broad playing arena for all players, including the consumers.
Industry sources had indicated that the MSOs had moved the court as they apprehended 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.
However, there is lack of clarity on the status of the petition filed by Videocon D2H, a distribution platform, to get impleaded in the aforementioned case being heard by Madras HC. The matter is listed for another round of hearing 7 March, 2017.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court, petitioned by TRAI, had refused to intervene in the case being heard by Madras HC and had stated in its last hearing few days back that it would wait for the outcome at the high court, listing TRAI appeal for a March-end hearing.
ALSO READ:
SC keeps TRAI request on tariff pending till Madras HC completes hearing
TRAI jurisdiction: IBF plea dismissed, AIDCF impleadment decision on 22 Feb
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.
