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 HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
