High Court
Bombay HC stays parts of new IT rules
New Delhi: The Bombay high court has granted an interim stay to the implementation of parts of the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021 which require that all online publishers follow a “code of ethics” and norms of conduct.
According to the court, “prima facie” (on the face of it), sub-clauses 1 and 3 of clause 9 of the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021 violated the petitioners’ constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19. Provisions of clause 9 also went beyond the scope of the substantive law (the Information Technology Act of 2000), it added further, according to PTI.
The court was hearing two petitions filed by digital news portal `The Leaflet’ and journalist Nikhil Wagle which had challenged the new regulations notified by the government in February this year. According to the petitions, the new rules are “vague”, “draconian”, and bound to have a “chilling effect” on the freedom of press and right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioners had also contended that the rules “go beyond the parameters set by the Information Technology Act and limits set under Article 19 of the Constitution”, and sought an interim stay on the implementation of the new IT Rules till the court gives its final decision in the matter.
Meanwhile, the high court has refused to stay clause 14 that pertains to the setting up of an inter-ministerial committee with powers to regulate online content and deal with grievances and breach of rules, and clause 16 which is about blocking of online content in case of an emergency.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 seek to regulate dissemination and publication of content in cyber space, including social media platforms. The rules notified in February, also recommend a three-tier mechanism for the regulation of all online media. Under the rules, the digital publishers are required to take urgent steps for appointing a grievance officer, if not done, and place all relevant details in the public domain. They also need to constitute self-regulatory bodies through mutual consultation so that the grievances are addressed at the level of publishers or the self-regulating bodies themselves.
It is significant to note that similar petitions opposing the new rules have been filed in high courts across the country.
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?
