High Court
Twitter complies with new IT rules
New Delhi: The social media giant Twitter on Monday told the Delhi high court that it has appointed the grievance redressal officer, as required under the new IT (guidelines for intermediaries and digital media ethics code) rules, 2021.
The court was hearing a plea by one Amit Acharya, alleging that Twitter India has not complied with the IT Rules, according to which it was required to appoint a Resident Grievance Officer, Nodal Officer and Chief Compliance officer to look into any complaints against the platform.
Appearing on behalf of the US company, senior advocate Sajan Poovayya shared a letter dated 28 May, claiming that the company has already made the requisite appointment. However, the claim was disputed by the petitioner who argued that Twitter’s GRO details could not be found when a complaint was sought to be made against certain objectionable tweets, The Indian Express reported. He also alleged that the microblogging platform has appointed a US resident as the Grievance Officer, contradictory to what the IT rules mandated.
During the course of hearing, the court has also made it clear that “if the rules have not been stayed then they have to be complied with”. It issued a notice to Twitter and gave the company three weeks to put the details on record. The case was adjourned for next hearing on July 6.
The government had released a circular on 26 May enquiring about compliance with the said rules by all SSMIs under the Rules. As per the rules, each significant social media intermediary is required to appoint a resident grievance officer, chief compliance officer, a nodal contact person for 24×7 coordination with law enforcement agencies. He/she would be required to acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within 15 days from its receipt.
All three should be resident Indians. They will also have to publish a monthly compliance report mentioning the details of complaints received and action taken. 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.
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?
