Delhi High Court notes that there cannot be blanket injunctions granted in personality rights cases
The Delhi High Court has indicated that it is not inclined to issue blanket interim injunctions in litigation concerning personality rights. Consequently, the Court has consolidated this matter with similar suits filed by actors Janhvi Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi, intending to comprehensively define the legal parameters governing personality rights cases.
Delhi High Court asks centre if there is any plan to regulate features of social media apps which causes addiction
The Delhi High Court inquired whether the Central Government intends to formulate a policy to regulate the addictive design features utilized by social media platforms, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay functionality, algorithmically curated feeds, persistent notifications, and “like” mechanisms. This inquiry was directed by a division bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma.
Bombay High Court quashes the process against the managing directors of TV9 for allegedly defaming Mumbai police officer
The Bombay High Court recently quashed the legal proceedings initiated against the directors of TV9 News Channel. The case stemmed from a defamation complaint filed by a Mumbai Police officer regarding a broadcast depicting an alleged assault on the officer by two individuals in a public space.
The state of Maharashtra gets a single window for clearances in relation to live events
The Maharashtra State Government has implemented a single-window system to streamline permissions for live events across the state, months after the last-minute cancelation of global electronic music brand and party series Circoloco’s India debut in Mumbai, which left over 4,000 ticket-holders in April.
The new approach requires organizers to apply for all permissions at least 15 days before an event. Applications will be processed through the Single Window Clearance System (SWCS), with authorities expected to make decisions on standard applications within 10 days and tatkaal applications within two days. If no decision is made, the application will be referred to a monitoring committee; if no action is taken within three days, deemed permission will be granted.
Delhi High Court directs CBFC to decide the proposal of the makers of Mirzapur to replace the ‘Shoorveer song’
The Delhi High Court directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to rule within a week on the makers of Mirzapur: The Movie’s application to substitute the song ‘Shoorveer’ in the film’s conclusion with background music. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia were hearing a PIL filed by Prashant Kumar Singh in this regard.
Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Vimal Elaichi which challenged the FDA notices to actors
The Delhi High Court rejected a petition filed by the producers of Vimal Elaichi to overturn show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA to their brand ambassadors, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff, for alleged product misrepresentation in their advertisements.
CBFC receives new guidelines for film certification after 35 years
On September 16, 2026, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting introduced a revised framework for film certification, superseding the 1991 guidelines established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The revised framework establishes that the primary objective of film certification is to ensure content remains aligned with societal values and standards, without imposing undue restrictions on artistic expression or creative freedom. Furthermore, the certification process is mandated to adapt to evolving social norms, promote wholesome entertainment, and maintain high standards of cinematic and aesthetic quality.
Regarding the depiction of violence and crime, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has been instructed to ensure that anti-social activities are neither glorified nor justified. Content must not feature the modus operandi of criminal activities, nor should it include imagery or dialogue that could potentially incite the commission of an offense.
Comedian Pranit More moves the Supreme Court of India seeking relief in relation to the FIRs over the controversy of Rs. 370 biryani
Following strong outrage over the ‘Rs.370 biryani’ issue, comedian Pranit More has petitioned the Supreme Court for the consolidation of FIRs filed against him in Maharashtra and Haryana. More’s appeal names the Union of India as well as the states of Maharashtra and Haryana. The case is expected to be listed next week.
Additional updates added by Anushree Rauta
Music industry pushes AI and fraud screening to the upload gate
The IFPI launched a voluntary Streaming Integrity Initiative on September 14, with 27 companies and trade bodies signed on, including Sony, Universal, Warner, HYBE and IDOL. It shifts anti-fraud work from streaming services which currently catch artificial plays only after royalties are apportioned to distributors, who are asked to run KYC on uploaders, screen for infringement and identify AI-generated tracks as a risk signal rather than banning them outright, detect play anomalies and blacklist repeat offenders across platforms, share fraud indicators, and measure results. Read more here
ASCI Unveils Vision 2032 with Centres for AI, Policy and Creator Trust
The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has unveiled its Vision 2032 roadmap, under which the ASCI Academy plans to establish three Centres of Excellence over the next 12–15 months to address emerging challenges in advertising. The Legal and Policy Forum will bring together industry, legal experts, regulators, academics and consumer representatives to address regulatory issues, undertake research and develop guidance and training; the Centre for Responsible Innovation in AI in Advertising will focus on responsible AI use across creative development, targeting, personalisation, influencer marketing and consumer engagement, including issues such as synthetic media, AI-generated claims and agentic decision-making; and the Centre for Creator Excellence and Trust will focus on professional standards, creator certification, disclosure and compliance, training and research. The initiative forms part of ASCI’s broader move to strengthen its preventive role in advertising self-regulation through policy, research, education and technology, alongside its existing complaints and monitoring functions.
DTH Operators Provision Over INR 11,000 Crore Amid Licence Fee Disputes and Subscriber Decline
India’s major direct-to-home (DTH) operators have collectively provisioned over INR 11,000 crore against disputed licence fee liabilities arising from demands raised by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), even as the sector faces declining subscribers and revenues. The matter remains pending before the TDSAT, various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the industry is awaiting a decision on TRAI’s recommendation to reduce the current licence fee from 8% to 3% of AGR and ultimately phase it out, at a time when private DTH operators have lost nearly 18 million subscribers between March 2022 and March 2026 due to migration towards OTT platforms, DD Free Dish and connected TVs.
Kerala High Court: Address Details Not Mandatory for Unknown Defendants in John Doe Suits
The Kerala High Court has held that courts should adopt a progressive approach in John Doe/Ashok Kumar proceedings and cannot insist on plaintiffs furnishing the physical addresses of unidentified defendants where their identities are inherently unknown. The ruling arose from a suit filed by Cubes Entertainments, producer of the Malayalam film Kattalan, seeking removal of reviews posted by unidentified persons on BookMyShow. The Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam had refused to number the suit for non-compliance with Order VI Rule 14A of the CPC, which requires addresses for service of notice. Setting aside that decision, Justice S. Easwaran observed that imposing such a requirement would defeat the very purpose of John Doe jurisprudence and that procedural rules should not become technical barriers to substantive justice. The Court noted that the trial court could instead require the plaintiff to implead the persons concerned once their identities become known, and directed it to number the suit and consider the producer’s interlocutory application.
