High Court
Govt serves ‘one last notice’ to Twitter to ‘immediately’ comply with IT rules
New Delhi: The government on Saturday issued ‘one last notice’ to Twitter Inc asking it to immediately comply with the new IT rules, failing which it could face stern action and lose exemption from liability under section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. This essentially means that the platform could be held responsible for content posted by the users.
“The provisions for significant social media intermediaries under the Rules have already come into force on 26 May and it has been more than a week but Twitter has refused to comply with the provisions of these rules,” the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) wrote to Twitter’s deputy general counsel, Jim Baker on Saturday.
According to the ministry, the US company has not informed about the details of the chief compliance officer. The resident grievance officer and nodal contact person nominated is not an employee of Twitter Inc in India, as required by rules. Furthermore, the office address of Twitter Inc shared by the company is that of a law firm in India, which is also not as per rules.
Twitter’s refusal to comply with the rules demonstrated its “lack of commitment and efforts towards providing a safe experience for the people of India on its platform,” it said. The ministry highlighted that the US tech giant has been operational in India for over a decade and “it is beyond belief that it has still doggedly refused to create mechanism that will enable the people of India to resolve their issues on the platform in a timely and transparent manner and through fair processes, by India based, clearly identified resources.”
Though with effect from 26 May, “consequences follow” given Twitter’s non-compliance with rules, however, the ministry wrote, as a “gesture of goodwill”, it is giving Twitter Inc one last notice to immediately comply with the rules, failing which it will be liable for consequences as per the IT Act and other penal laws of India.
The new IT (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) rules, 2021, recommend a three-tier mechanism for regulation of all online media. As per the rules, each significant social media intermediary is required to appoint a chief compliance officer, a nodal contact person for 24×7 coordination with law enforcement agencies and a resident grievance officer. All three should be resident Indians.
The intermediaries are also required to prominently publish on their website, app or both, the name of the grievance officer and his/her contact details as well as the mechanism by which a user or a victim may make a complaint. The grievance officer would be required to acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days from its receipt. The government has also asked the significant social media intermediaries providing services primarily in the nature of messaging “to enable identification of the first originator of the information.”
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?
