A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a comprehensive regulatory framework for Artificial Intelligence tools in India. The petition emphasizes urgent action to curb deepfakes and protect individuals from impersonation.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) submitted to the Supreme Court, urging the Union of India to establish and notify a comprehensive regulatory and licensing framework for Artificial Intelligence tools, particularly those that can create images, videos, and audio (“deepfakes”).
The petition, filed by Aarati Sah, also calls for directions to Meta Platforms (Instagram and Facebook) and Google LLC, among other AI tool owners, to implement effective, transparent, and prompt grievance-redressal mechanisms to ensure the swift removal of AI-generated content that impersonates real individuals.
Additionally, the petition seeks the formation of an Expert Committee comprising government officials, legal experts, technologists, and civil society members to recommend standards for the ethical deployment of AI.
It highlights that the unchecked use of such AI systems has led to significant misuse, infringing upon citizens’ rights to privacy, dignity, and personality.
The petition states,
“Over the last year, AI technology has become easily accessible in India, and in the last few months, there has been a sharp rise in AI-generated content impersonating celebrities, journalists, and other public personalities. Multiple High Courts have already granted interim protection to victims of deepfakes, reflecting the urgency and genuineness of the problem. However, the absence of a national regulatory framework has resulted in fragmented judicial intervention and leaves citizens vulnerable to exploitation and defamation,”
The plea references global examples, including the European Union, United States, China, and Singapore, which have enacted risk-based AI regulations, content labeling requirements, and enforcement mechanisms to curb the misuse of synthetic media.
It argues that India’s lack of such safeguards, combined with ineffective reporting and grievance processes on platforms like Meta and Google/YouTube, has allowed AI-generated misinformation to proliferate unchecked, undermining constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.
The Supreme Court has been informed that the unregulated exposure to artificial intelligence has led to a rise in litigation before High Courts, particularly in Delhi and Bombay, where public figures seek protection of their personality rights.
The plea adds,
“Each Hon’ble High Court, including the Courts of Delhi and Bombay, has recognized that the misuse of AI-generated images, videos, and audio (“deepfakes”) infringes the right to privacy and reputation, which are fundamental aspects protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the judicial interventions to date have been piecemeal and case specific, without a uniform regulatory framework. It is apposite that this Hon’ble Court, in anticipation of a rapidly growing number of similar cases, directs the establishment of a comprehensive national regime that prevents such violations proactively, thereby safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights and preventing the overburdening of the higher judiciary with repetitive litigation on matters of the same nature,”
Citing the judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), which recognized the right to privacy as a vital aspect of Article 21, the petitioner contends that the creation and dissemination of AI-generated content that overlays an individual’s face or voice without consent constitutes a severe violation of informational and bodily privacy, as well as personal autonomy.
The petition also indicates that intermediary liability provisions under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, are being exploited by global digital platforms to evade their legal responsibilities.
Despite receiving actual notice through their reporting systems, these platforms frequently fail to remove infringing or objectionable AI-generated content promptly.
Instead of addressing the violations, they often disable the complainant’s access or visibility to the content, thereby shifting the burden onto the aggrieved individual rather than resolving the issue itself.
Case Title: AARATI SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
