4 October 2025 Legal Updates

UNAUTHORISED USE OF CELEBRITY VOICE USING AI TOOLS VIOLATES RIGHTS: BOMBAY HIGH COURT GRANTS RELIEF TO ASHA BHOSLE

(a) Case Title:

• Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Commercial Division)

(c) Date of Decision:

• 29th September, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Arif S. Doctor

Facts of the Case

Plaintiff: Asha Bhosle, legendary playback singer with over seven decades in the Indian music industry, winner of numerous prestigious awards including Dadasaheb Phalke Award, Padma Vibhushan, and recognized by Guinness World Records as the "Most Recorded Artist."

Defendants:

• Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 (Mayk Inc.): Owner of AI platform cloning Asha Bhosle's voice, enabling anyone to create songs in her voice
• Defendant Nos. 3 & 4: Amazon and Flipkart - hosting unauthorized merchandise with her image
• Defendant No. 5: Sketch artist selling T-shirts/hoodies with her image
• Defendant No. 6 (Google LLC): YouTube hosting AI-generated videos using cloned voice
• Defendant No. 7: "John Doe" for unidentified infringers

Legal Issues

• Whether unauthorized use of a celebrity's name, voice, image, and likeness through AI technology violates personality rights?
• Whether unauthorized AI voice cloning constitutes violation of moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957?
• Whether intermediary platforms are liable for hosting infringing content?

Plaintiff's Contentions

Personality rights include name, voice, signatures, photographs, images, caricatures, and other personality attributes. Defendants commercially exploited these rights without authorization. AI voice cloning tools facilitate unauthorized appropriation of celebrity identity. Violation of moral rights by distorting/mutilating her voice and performances. Monetary compensation would be inadequate as irreparable harm caused.

Defendant No. 6's Response

Google LLC's counsel agreed to take down specific URLs mentioned in the Plaint. Sought time to take instructions on broader reliefs.

Court's Findings

Prima Facie Case Established: Asha Bhosle is indisputably a pre-eminent personality in music. Her personality traits are distinctly identifiable in unauthorized uses. Defendants using her attributes for commercial gain without permission amounts to commercial exploitation. AI tools enabling voice conversion without consent constitute personality rights violation

Key Legal Principles Applied:

• Celebrities entitled to protection of personality facets against unauthorized commercial exploitation
• Making AI tools available for converting voices into celebrity voices without permission violates personality rights
• Such tools facilitate unauthorized appropriation and manipulation, undermining the celebrity's right to control their identity
• Non-appearance of served defendants (Nos. 1, 2, 5) supports case of unauthorized infringement

Decision/Orders

Ad-Interim Injunction Granted Against Defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 5 restraining them from:

• Utilizing/exploiting plaintiff's personality rights, publicity rights, and moral rights
• Using her name, voice, vocal style, mannerisms, photographs, signature, or any personality attributes
• Using AI Voice Models, Generative AI, Machine Learning, Face Morphing technologies
• Passing off goods/services as endorsed by plaintiff

The defendants 3,4 and 6 were also directed to take down/remove/delete all infringing content within one week.

CLAIMS RAISED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS STAND EXTINGUISHED, NOT AMENABLE TO ARBITRATION: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case title:

• JSW Ispat Special Products Limited v. Bharat Petro resources Limited

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• 11th September, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Jyoti Singh

Background

JSW Ispat Special Products Limited underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT in 2018, which settled claims of operational creditors, including Bharat Petro resources Limited (BPRL). BPRL received partial payment for pre-insolvency claims but later sought arbitration for post-insolvency claims that were not part of the approved Resolution Plan.

Key Issues

• Arbitrator's Eligibility: Whether the Presiding Arbitrator was ineligible under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act for having "previous involvement in the case" - he had earlier decided an appeal as NCLAT Chairperson involving the same parties and related issues.
• Arbitrability of Claims: Whether claims not included in an approved Resolution Plan under IBC can be arbitrated after the plan's approval.

Court's Findings

1. On Arbitrator's Eligibility:

• The Court held that merely deciding an appeal as a judge/adjudicator does not constitute "previous involvement in the case" under Entry 16 of the Seventh Schedule.
• "Previous involvement" means advisory or consultative roles, not judicial adjudication.
• The NCLAT appeal dealt with whether the Resolution Professional had power to collate post-ICD claims (a legal question), not the merits of those claims.
• The arbitrator's earlier role as independent adjudicator did not create conflict of interest.

2. On Arbitrability:

• The Court quashed the arbitral award, holding that claims outside the approved Resolution Plan are non-arbitrable and extinguished by law.
• Once NCLT approves a Resolution Plan under Section 31 of IBC, all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished - this is the "clean slate" principle.
• Section 238 of IBC gives it overriding effect over other laws, including the Arbitration Act.
• Successful resolution applicants cannot face "undecided claims" after approval - this would be like "hydra heads popping up."

Legal Principles Established

• Clean Slate Doctrine: Resolution applicants acquire the company on a fresh slate without liabilities not mentioned in the approved plan.
• Finality of Resolution Plans: All stakeholders (creditors, governments, employees) are bound by approved plans; claims outside the plan cannot be pursued.
• Arbitrator Disclosure Requirements: Section 12 mandates disclosure, but prior judicial decisions don't automatically disqualify an arbitrator.
• IBC's Supremacy: IBC provisions override other laws when determining claim enforceability.

Outcome

The petition was allowed, and the arbitral award dated 21.08.2024 (worth ₹12.90 crores) was set aside as the claims had been extinguished upon approval of the Resolution Plan.

NDPS ACT | FSL REPORT ONLY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, ITS NON-FILING WITH CHARGESHEET NO GROUND FOR BAIL: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Randhir v. State of U.P.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

(c) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

(d) Date of Decision:

• September 4, 2025

Facts

The applicant Randhir, working as a cleaner in a DCM truck, was arrested on November 12, 2023, for charges under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. Police intercepted the truck at Robertsganj, Sonbhadra, and recovered 151.600 kg of ganja (contraband) in eight packets—well above commercial quantity. Both the driver and cleaner (applicant) were apprehended and allegedly confessed to transporting the contraband from Odisha to Haryana.

• Previous Bail Application: The applicant's first bail application was rejected on August 12, 2024. This was his second attempt seeking bail.
• Applicant's Arguments: He was merely a daily wage worker (Rs. 500/day) with no connection to the contraband. Mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act were not complied with. Representative samples from each bag were not properly prepared. FSL report was not part of the charge-sheet filed on December 31, 2023. He had no criminal history and has dependents (wife, three daughters, one son). Trial witness had also not appeared despite NBWs being issued.
• State's Arguments: Huge quantity (151.600 kg) of commercial-grade contraband was recovered. Applicant was in conscious possession being present in the truck. Samples (80 grams) from all eight bags were sent for chemical analysis on November 18, 2023. FSL report dated December 2, 2023 confirmed the substance as Ganja. FSL report became part of case diary on June 16, 2024, as investigation regarding the vehicle owner was ongoing. Section 173(8) CrPC permits further investigation and supplementary reports.

Key Legal Principles Discussed

1. Section 37 NDPS Act (Twin Conditions for Bail):

The court must be satisfied that:

• There are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty
• The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

Both conditions are mandatory and must be satisfied simultaneously.

2. Section 52A NDPS Act (Disposal of Seized Contraband):

The Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) clarified:

• Section 52A provides for early disposal of seized narcotics considering hazardous nature, theft vulnerability, and storage constraints
• Non-compliance or delayed compliance is a procedural irregularity, not an illegality
• Such irregularity alone does not vitiate trial or entitle accused to bail
• The provision uses "OR" between three purposes (certifying inventory/photographs/samples), making them alternative, not cumulative

3. Conscious Possession:

The court relied on Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan (2021) and Madan Lal v. State of H.P. (2003) establishing that:

• Possession includes conscious possession and constructive possession
• When contraband is recovered from a private vehicle with few known persons, conscious possession is presumed
• Once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of conscious possession (Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act)

4. FSL Report and Charge-Sheet:

Citing K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) and CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024):

• Charge-sheet is complete if it contains details prescribed under Section 173(2) CrPC
• FSL report is corroborative evidence, not mandatory for charge-sheet validity
• Section 173(8) CrPC permits further investigation and supplementary reports even after charge-sheet filing
• Non-inclusion of FSL report doesn't invalidate the charge-sheet or entitle accused to bail

5. Section 50 NDPS Act:

The court noted that Section 50 applies only to personal search of a person, not to search of vehicles, containers, or premises.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The court rejected the bail application on the following grounds:

• Commercial Quantity: 151.600 kg of ganja is substantially above commercial quantity, indicating serious offence
• Conscious Possession: The applicant was present in the truck when contraband was recovered, establishing conscious possession
• Twin Conditions Not Satisfied: The court found no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty or that he wouldn't commit offences while on bail
• FSL Report Valid: The FSL report dated December 2, 2023 confirmed the substance as ganja and was properly made part of case diary during ongoing investigation
• Procedural Compliance: Any delays in Section 52A compliance constitute procedural irregularities, not illegalities fatal to prosecution
• Stringent NDPS Standards: Given the serious nature of drug offences and their impact on society, particularly youth, courts must apply stringent parameters for bail