Kartik Aaryan seeks protection of personality rights against unauthorised use
Kartik Aaryan has approached the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against alleged unauthorised commercial exploitation in the digital space. He has instituted a suit against multiple Indian and international e-commerce and social media platforms, along with unidentified “John Doe” parties, alleging misuse of his identity.
The plea contends that his name, image and likeness are being used without consent across merchandise, advertisements and other online content, amounting to a violation of his publicity and privacy rights. He has accordingly sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using his photographs, videos, voice or any other personal attributes for commercial purposes, including through emerging technologies such as AI-generated content and deepfake
Read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Seeks Responses From MEITY and Google in 4PM News Channel Blocking Case
The Delhi High Court issued notices to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) and Google in a petition filed by the 4 PM news platform challenging the blockage of its YouTube channel. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued the notice and asked the government and the search giant to file their responses. The petition was brought by the YouTube channel 4PM News and its editor-in-chief, Sanjay Sharma. The applicants say their channel had more than 8.4 million subscribers and had been ranked at the top for the past three years. They allege that in March 2026 their channel and 26 videos were blocked after Google acted on a legal request from the government. The petitioners say neither Google nor MEITY provided any formal order or explanation. According to the plea, the blocking was done without prior notice and requests for the underlying documents were refused on grounds of “confidentiality.”
Read more about it here.
Dhurandhar 2” faces legal challenge over alleged unauthorised use of “Oye Oye
Proceedings have reportedly been initiated by Trimurti Films against filmmaker Aditya Dhar’s production house in relation to the alleged unauthorised use of the iconic “Oye Oye” track (from the film Tridev) in Dhurandhar 2. The dispute centres on the film’s track “Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)”, which is alleged to have incorporated and substantially reproduced distinctive elements of the original song, including its hook line, composition and musical arrangement, without securing requisite permissions from the rights holders.
Read more about it here.
Bombay High Court grants interim relief restraining script copying allegations against “Dhurandhar 2”
The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief in favour of filmmaker Aditya Dhar in a defamation suit arising out of allegations that Dhurandhar 2 was copied from a third-party script. The dispute stems from public statements made by a writer, Santosh Kumar, who claimed that the film was based on his registered script titled D Saheb. In his plea, Dhar contended that the allegations—made through press interactions and public statements—were false, defamatory and had caused significant reputational harm, particularly given the wide circulation of such claims following the film’s release. He further argued that while the defendant was free to pursue appropriate legal remedies for alleged infringement, continued public assertions of “script theft” were unjustified and prejudicial. The Court, noting that a prima facie case had been made out, granted limited ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from repeating the impugned allegations or making similar statements pending further hearing
Read more about it here.
NCDRC stays warrant against Salman Khan in misleading advertisement dispute
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has stayed the execution of a warrant issued against Salman Khan in connection with a misleading advertisement dispute involving Rajshree Pan Masala. The allegations relate to claims made in the advertisements reportedly suggesting the presence of premium ingredients such as saffron in a low-cost product, which are alleged to be misleading and capable of influencing consumer behaviour.
Read more about it here.
MeitY conducts stakeholder consultations on proposed amendments to IT Rules, 2021
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has initiated stakeholder consultations with intermediaries and civil society groups on proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The consultations are aimed at strengthening accountability mechanisms for digital platforms, refining content moderation obligations, and addressing emerging challenges such as misinformation, harmful online content and the growing use of AI-driven tools. Stakeholders have reportedly flagged concerns regarding regulatory overreach, increased compliance burdens and the potential impact on freedom of expression.
As per reports, while speaking to the press, Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, S Krishnan, also said it may extend the April 14 deadline for receiving feedback on proposed IT rules.
Read more about it hereand here.
Amazon expands Counterfeit Crimes unit operations to India
Amazon has expanded its Counterfeit Crimes Unit operations to India as part of its broader efforts to combat the proliferation of fake goods on its platform. The move reflects increasing emphasis on proactive, technology-driven enforcement mechanisms by intermediaries to address trademark infringement and protect brand owners. It also signals a shift towards greater private enforcement complementing statutory remedies, particularly in the e-commerce ecosystem.
Read more about it here.
Kunal Kamra challenges Sahyog Portal framework before Bombay High Court over potential unchecked takedown powers
Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging aspects of the government’s Sahyog portal framework, contending that it may enable content takedown requests without adequate judicial oversight. The plea raises concerns regarding the possibility of arbitrary censorship and the chilling effect such mechanisms may have on free speech. The petition specifically alleges that the portal unlawfully empowers numerous Central and State government officials to issue takedown or blocking directions without adhering to due process requirements such as prior notice, an opportunity of hearing, and reasoned orders. It is further contended that affected users are not provided any remedy against such actions, resulting in unchecked executive control over online content.
Read more about it here.
Bombay High Court allows “Kaithi” vs “Bholaa” suit to proceed in Mumbai
The Bombay High Court has held that it has jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by Dream Warrior Pictures, the producers of Kaithi against the makers of Bholaa, including Ajay Devgn’s production house and Reliance Entertainment. The Court rejected objections that the dispute ought to be confined to Chennai courts and permitted the proceedings to continue in Mumbai
The suit alleges breach of contractual obligations and infringement of copyright and remake rights in relation to Bholaa, the Hindi adaptation of Kaithi. The plaintiffs have claimed that certain payment obligations under the remake agreements were not fulfilled, and that consequent defaults triggered termination of the arrangement and reversion of rights.
Read more about it here.
Kerala High Court rejects plea to restrain film linked to Venjaramoodu case
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the father of an accused in the Venjaramoodu mass murder case seeking to restrain the release and promotion of the film Kaalam Paranja Kadha, which is allegedly inspired by the incident.
In his petition, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the release of the film—while the criminal trial is still pending. would prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial and create a “media trial” environment. It was further contended that the portrayal of events closely resembling the incident could stigmatise the accused and irreparably harm the reputation of the family. The Court, however, declined to grant relief, noting that the film had received certification and appeared to be a fictionalised account with disclaimers and altered details. It held that speculative apprehensions regarding prejudice to trial or reputational harm were insufficient to justify a pre-release restraint on a creative work.
Read more about it here.