High Court
Zee vs Railtel arbitration: tribunal dismisses claims by both
MUMBAI: Railtel Corp and Zee Entertainment have been at loggerheads for the past three years.
The bone of contention has been the cancellation of a 10 year contract that Zee’s subsidiary Margo Networks had signed with the former in March 2021 to provide content on demand (movies, news, music videos, and general entertainment) free of buffering onboard 8,731 trains including 5,723 suburban trains and more than 5,952 wi-fi-enabled railway stations. As part of this, media servers were to be installed in railway coaches.
The Railway Board had assigned Railtel with the task of implementing this dream project which had then subcontracted it to Margo. Revenue expectations were high with the Railways hoping to pocket at least Rs 60 crore as part of the 50:50 arrangement it had made with Railtel.
The project had moved to pilot implementation stage in a Rajdhani train and in an AC rake of the western railways.
And then it was called off suddenly in November 2021. Railtel said, it was due to the alleged non-performance of Margo Networks. Zee Entertainment had disagreed and announced that it would haul Railtel to the courts.
In August 2023, it started arbitration proceedings against Railtel for cancelling the contract and claimed amounts wrongfully forfeited by the latter along with costs/damages. The matter had been with the arbitral tribunal since then.
Zee Entertainment, on 26 November 2025, informed the BSE in a regulatory filing, that the arbitral tribunal had made its arbitral award. As part of that, it had rejected its and Margo’s claims against Railtel. It added that the tribunal had also rejected the counter claims made by Railtel.
Zee added that it is “evaluating the option of filing an application/appeal before the appropriate court for setting aside of the arbitral award.”
Clearly, we have not seen the last of this courtroom saga.
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?
