TRAI Repeals 12-Minute TV Advertising Cap
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) repealed its long standing regulation capping television advertisements at 12 minutes per clock hour. This was done through the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Repealing) Regulations, 2026, which repealed the 2012 regulations along with all orders and directions issued under them.
The move follows an earlier decision by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), which had omitted Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, through a notification published in the Official Gazette on August 21, 2026, effectively removing the 12-minute ad-duration cap for TV channels. The government justified this on grounds of significant changes in the broadcasting sector, increased competition and consumer choice, and a push for ease of doing business.
Since TRAI’s 2012 rules existed mainly to enforce MIB’s deleted provision, TRAI said continuing its own regulations would no longer be consistent with the amended Cable Television Networks Rules, prompting the repeal. The change gives broadcasters greater flexibility in scheduling and monetizing advertising inventory, particularly during prime-time slots, ending a rule that had governed TV ad limits for over a decade.
You can read more about it here.
ANI Appeals Delhi HC Order Denying Interim Relief Against OpenAI
The Asian News International (ANI) has filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, challenging a single judge’s July 24, 2026 order that denied it interim relief in its copyright infringement suit against OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. In its original injunction application, ANI had sought directions to stop OpenAI from storing, publishing, or reproducing its copyrighted content, arguing that ChatGPT reproduced its news material and even attributed false statements to it.
Justice Amit Bansal had rejected that plea, holding that OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s original works for training ChatGPT falls under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act and does not amount to infringement. The judge also found no substantial similarity between ChatGPT’s outputs and ANI’s articles, and said granting an injunction could harm public interest given ChatGPT’s transformative, widely-used nature.
ANI’s appeal, filed through advocate Sidhant Kumar, argues the single judge misread copyright law and improperly widened the scope of “fair use” for commercial purposes. The appeal is being heard by a Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, with the underlying infringement suit still pending.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OPCO LLC.
Case No: FAO (OS) (COMM) – 237/2026
Dunes Aviation Sues Nora Fatehi Over “Lego Airplane” Remark
Ahmedabad-based Dunes Aviation has filed a ₹3-crore civil defamation suit against Bollywood actor Nora Fatehi at a Gandhinagar court, alleging that her “derogatory and reckless” social media comments about its chartered aircraft damaged the company’s reputation. The suit, filed in April 2026, will be heard by senior civil judge R. Agarwal on September 25.
The dispute stems from a Mumbai-Jaipur flight Fatehi took in December 2025 aboard a Dunes Aviation Cessna Citation CJ2. She recorded videos inside the aircraft, describing it as a “miniature,” a “toy,” and a “Lego airplane,” and posted them to Instagram, where she has over 4.6 crore followers.
Dunes Aviation claims the remarks were made “without any technical knowledge, verification or factual basis” and caused a 15–20% drop in bookings along with a rise in cancellations. The company maintains the aircraft is standard, DGCA-certified and lawfully operated under a valid NSOP.
Besides monetary damages, the suit seeks a court order directing removal of the related content from Fatehi’s social media and a public clarification from the actor.
You can read more about it here.
Mirzapur: The Movie Faces Row Over “Shoorveer” Song Usage
“Mirzapur: The Movie” has landed in controversy over its use of the song “Shoorveer,” originally performed by Rajasthani artist Rapperiya Baalam (Ashok Manda Bishnoi). The track, dedicated to Maharana Pratap and his horse Chetak, was featured in a film sequence involving gangster characters, prompting Baalam to allege the makers used his song without permission or credit.
In an emotional Instagram video, Baalam said he was hurt not because his song appeared in a major film, but because of how it was used to “glorify gangsters” and because the Mirzapur team never sought his consent. He said he would have supported the makers had they approached him directly.
In response, Trouper Records, the music label behind the song, issued a clarification stating that “Shoorveer” was officially licensed to Excel Entertainment for use in the film, crediting Baalam as singer and composer. This addressed the unauthorized use claim but not Baalam’s objection to the song’s context.
The controversy also drew political attention, with Rajasthan BJP leader Rajendra Rathore writing to the CBFC seeking the song’s removal, calling its pairing with criminal characters disrespectful to Maharana Pratap’s legacy. The film has meanwhile performed strongly at the box office.
You can read more about it here.
Saregama Seeks Contempt Action Against Ilaiyaraaja Over Copyright Order Violation
Saregama India has moved the Delhi High Court seeking contempt of court action against veteran composer Ilaiyaraaja, alleging he continued to exploit and assert ownership over songs covered by a standing injunction. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice on the plea and sought Ilaiyaraaja’s response.
The application arises from Saregama’s ongoing copyright suit, in which the Delhi High Court, on February 13, 2026, had passed an interim order restraining Ilaiyaraaja and those acting for him from exploiting, licensing, or claiming ownership over copyrighted works spanning music from 134 films. Ilaiyaraaja’s subsequent plea to vacate that injunction was dismissed by the court on July 1.
Saregama now alleges the composer openly defied the injunction by continuing to make the covered works available on platforms like Spotify and YouTube, and by asserting ownership claims to third parties citing, among other examples, a May 8 legal notice to Beyond Pictures over the song “Podhuvaga Emmanasu Thangam” from Murattukkaalai.
The company has asked the court to detain Ilaiyaraaja in civil prison, attach his movable and immovable properties, and appoint a receiver to sell the attached assets and remit proceeds to Saregama.
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja.
Case No: CS(COMM) 143/2026
You can read more about it here.
Delhi HC Told “Kala Hiran” Not Yet Certified, Not Ready for Release
The makers of the proposed film “Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy”, said to be inspired by Salman Khan’s 1998 blackbuck poaching case, told the Delhi High Court on September 10 that the film is not in a releasable state, as it has yet to be certified by the Censor Board. Justice Jyoti Singh recorded the statement and directed the defendants to file their reply within two weeks, with the matter listed next for September 30.
Khan’s counsel had argued that a release could cause the actor “immense harm,” noting the makers themselves had indicated a September release. When the court asked about the film’s release timeline, counsel for the producer said instructions were needed and raised objections to the suit’s maintainability and jurisdiction. Khan’s side pointed out that OTT release doesn’t require CBFC certification, which the court noted.
In his suit, Khan has named producer Amit Jani, Jani FireFox Films, director Bharat Shrinate, and casting director Akshay Pandey as defendants. He is seeking an injunction against the film’s release, takedown of its teaser, a public apology, destruction of promotional material, and damages exceeding ₹2 crore, alleging the film violates his personality rights by portraying him with underworld links.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi HC Bars Misuse of AI Deepfakes Infringing Rajat Sharma’s Personality Rights
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction protecting India TV Editor-in-Chief Rajat Sharma’s personality and publicity rights against AI-generated deepfake misuse. Hearing a suit filed by Sharma and India TV, Justice Amit Bansal restrained multiple defendants from misusing or exploiting Sharma’s name, likeness, image, voice, or other personal traits without his written authorization.
Sharma, described in the plea as a “renowned journalist” and a two-decade fixture on Indian television, alleged that unknown persons were using AI to create doctored videos bearing his distorted image and voice to falsely promote drugs for conditions like diabetes, prostatitis, and joint pain, some claiming endorsement by eminent doctors or government certification. Similar tactics allegedly misused the likenesses of Amitabh Bachchan and Dr. Naresh Trehan.
The court also found India TV’s registered trademarks, including “Aaj Ki Baat: Rajat Sharma Ke Sath,” were being used without authorization. Holding that a prima facie case was made out and irreparable injury would result otherwise, the court directed Meta Platforms to take down the infringing content and disclose the defendants’ identifying details. The case builds on Sharma’s broader push, including a PIL, for stronger legal safeguards against deepfake misuse in India.
Case Title: Rajat Sharma & Anr. V. Tamara Doc & Ors.
Case No: CS(COMM) 1147/2024
You can read more about it here.
Gujarat HC Quashes FIR: No Copyright Offence in Counterfeit Apple Goods Case
The Gujarat High Court has quashed a criminal FIR registered against a shopkeeper for selling counterfeit Apple accessories, holding that the allegations amount to trademark misuse rather than copyright infringement. Justice P.M. Raval observed that neither the FIR nor the seizure memo identified any specific literary or artistic work copied from Apple, making the prosecution under the Copyright Act legally unsustainable.
The case originated from an FIR filed on October 19, 2022, at Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad, against Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kiplani, following a complaint by a manager at Griffin Intellectual Property Service Pvt. Ltd., a firm authorized by Apple Inc. to act against counterfeiters. A police raid on Kiplani’s shop, “Raj Cover House,” led to the seizure of AirPods, cables, power adapters, a smartwatch, and Apple-branded stickers worth over ₹15 lakh, with the FIR invoking Sections 51, 63, and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Kiplani’s counsel argued that the seized items were commercial hardware, not “artistic or literary works” under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, and that such counterfeiting properly falls under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 instead, a position the court accepted in quashing the case.
Case Title: Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kiplani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 21846 of 2022
You can read more about it here.
Delhi HC Summons Defendants in Pulkit Mani’s Copyright Suit; Meta Restores Two Reels
The Delhi High Court has issued summons in a lawsuit filed by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani over copyright strikes imposed on his Instagram page following complaints by unknown persons. Justice Jyoti Singh also issued notice on Mani’s interim relief application. During the hearing, Meta Platforms informed the court that it had restored the two Instagram Reels at the center of the dispute.
Defendants named include Meta, Google, WhatsApp, Microsoft, the Union of India, and several John Doe defendants, including unidentified Instagram accounts. Mani, a comedian with over 592,000 followers who has performed since 2021, alleges the Reels were his original work, but that copyright strikes were recorded against his page despite his appeals, and that he received no reasoned response from Meta. He also claims to have received threats of further strikes from unidentified individuals.
Meta agreed to share subscriber and IP log details for certain John Doe defendants; Google and WhatsApp committed to submitting related data within two to three weeks. Mani is seeking a declaration of ownership, removal of the strikes, protection from account suspension, disclosure of the complainants’ identities, and ₹2.20 crore in damages. The interim relief plea is listed for January 18.
Case Title: Pulkit Mani v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors.
Case No: CS(COMM) 982/2026
You can read more about it here.
Tamil Film Industry Strike Postponed; Sardar 2, Demonte Colony 3, Immortal Get Relief
The Tamil Film Producers Council (TFPC) and the Tamil Film Active Producers Association have postponed their planned strike over the theatrical-to-OTT release window dispute, offering relief to several upcoming films, including Sardar 2, Demonte Colony 3, and Immortal, which were at risk of release delays.
The standoff arose after the Tamil Nadu Theatre Owners Association and Distributors Association demanded an eight-week exclusive theatrical window before films could premiere on OTT platforms, up from the existing four-week norm, and said they would screen only films carrying a written commitment to this effect. In response, producer bodies had announced a halt to new theatrical releases, shootings, and post-production work from September 1, calling the theatre owners’ and distributors’ move unilateral and unacceptable.
The strike was deferred after Tamil Nadu Minister for Information and Publicity Rajmohan assured producers, who met him on August 26, that the matter would be brought to Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s attention and that tripartite talks between producers, distributors, and theatre owners would be facilitated once the ongoing Assembly session concluded. The current release process was to continue in the interim, easing uncertainty over the affected films’ schedules.
You can read more about it here.
Madras HC: Copyright Suit Referred to Arbitration Under Section 45
In Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Madras High Court held that a civil remedy for copyright infringement under Section 55 of the Copyright Act can be pursued through arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed Eros Technologies’ application seeking an ad interim injunction against Ayngaran International Media, Ayngaran International Films, and their director from exploiting certain cinematograph films, and instead allowed the defendants’ application to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The plaintiff claimed copyright over the films through a chain of assignments originating from Ayngaran International Limited, arguing it and the defendants were not parties to the arbitration clause in the original assignment agreement, and that copyright infringement was a statutory, non-arbitrable claim. The defendants countered that the arbitration clause bound successive assignees and that the plaintiff, as a subsequent assignee, was covered by it.
The Court held that defendants 1 to 3 could not be treated as third parties, since copyright owners must necessarily be joined in infringement suits under Section 56. Finding no prima facie evidence that the arbitration agreement was null, void, or unenforceable, the Court referred the parties to arbitration and dismissed the injunction application, directing the plaint be struck off and returned.
Case Title: Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: CS(COMM.Div.) 140/2026
