The Delhi High Court Today (Feb 25) refused an urgent hearing on banning DeepSeek AI, stating users can choose not to use it. The court questioned the urgency, noting similar AI platforms already exist.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court said on Tuesday that if the Chinese AI platform DeepSeek is dangerous, people can simply choose not to use it.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made this statement while rejecting a request to speed up the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that wanted DeepSeek to be banned in India.
“Don’t use it if it is so harmful. Is it compulsory for you to use it? There is no ground for seeking urgent hearing,”
-Justice Upadhyaya said.
The PIL against DeepSeek raised concerns about privacy and security, requesting the court to set rules to block such AI platforms.
Earlier, on February 12, the court had asked the lawyer representing the central government to get instructions on the matter and scheduled the hearing for April 16. Later, the petitioner filed an application asking for an urgent hearing of the case.
“The matter is little bit sensitive,”
-the petitioner’s lawyer argued in court.
However, the court disagreed, saying there was no urgency since similar AI platforms have been available in India for a long time.
“How is it sensitive? Such applications in the other names are available since when in India? It’s not only DeepSeek. There are other platforms also. They are available, accessible since when,”
-the court questioned.
The court then addressed the lawyer, saying,
“Please do not use that platform if you feel that it is harmful.”
The lawyer replied that he personally wouldn’t use it, but the platform was accessible to the general public.
“Yes, it is available … so many things are available on net for the entire world to have access,”
-the court remarked.
After this, the court refused to allow an early hearing of the case, stating that this matter did not require urgent attention.
“No case for early hearing is made out. The application is rejected,”
-the court ruled.
Advocates Nihit Dalmia and Bhavna Sharma represented the case.
CASE TITLE:
Bhavna Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
