Key Points
- Supreme Court stays Gujarat High Court proceedings on PIL seeking deepfake regulation
- Notice returnable on 5 October with proceedings kept in abeyance until further orders
- Similar pleas pending before Karnataka and Bombay high courts also stayed earlier
The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings before the Gujarat High Court on a public interest litigation seeking regulation of artificial intelligence-generated deepfake content, while issuing notice to the Centre on a transfer petition seeking to consolidate similar cases at the apex court.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the notice returnable on 5 October. The bench directed that proceedings in the Gujarat High Court be kept in abeyance until further orders.
Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the central government, told the bench that proceedings concerning similar pleas before other high courts had already been stayed by the Supreme Court and that those matters had subsequently come before the apex court. The transfer petition seeks to bring all deepfake-related PILs under a single judicial examination.
The Gujarat High Court proceedings arise from a PIL filed by Vikas Vijay Nair seeking a comprehensive regulatory mechanism to address the misuse of AI, particularly the creation and dissemination of deepfake photographs and videos. Deepfakes are synthetic media created using AI algorithms that can replace a person’s likeness in images or videos with someone else’s, often without consent and with results that can be difficult to distinguish from authentic content.
Deepfake regulation
The plea has raised specific concerns over deepfakes involving constitutional and statutory authorities. Such content, the petitioner argued, poses risks to public order, national security and the integrity of democratic institutions when manipulated media depicting officials or leaders circulates without verification mechanisms.
In April, the Gujarat High Court had sought responses from several major online platforms, including Meta India, Google, X, Reddit and Scribd, on the PIL and its demand for measures to curb AI-generated deepfake material. The court’s notice to these platforms reflected the growing recognition that intermediaries play a central role in the distribution of synthetic media.
The issue is also being examined in proceedings before other high courts. Petitions concerning the regulation and misuse of AI-generated and deepfake content are pending before the Karnataka and Bombay high courts. Those proceedings have involved, among others, X Corp, DigiPub News Foundation, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay multiple high court proceedings suggests the apex court may be considering a consolidated approach to the regulatory questions raised by deepfake technology. Transfer petitions of this nature are typically filed when the government or a party argues that fragmented adjudication across different courts could produce conflicting judgements on matters of national importance.
Legal framework
India currently lacks a dedicated law on deepfakes. The Information Technology Act 2000 and its intermediary guidelines address certain aspects of harmful content, but do not specifically define or regulate AI-generated synthetic media. Section 66D of the IT Act covers cheating by impersonation using computer resources, while Section 67 addresses publishing obscene material, but neither provision was drafted with deepfake technology in mind.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued advisories to social media platforms in December 2023 and January 2024 on deepfakes, asking them to remove such content and inform users about the prohibition on hosting impersonating content. However, these advisories do not carry the force of law and rely on voluntary compliance by platforms.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, which is yet to be fully notified, addresses consent for use of personal data but does not specifically cover the use of a person’s likeness to create synthetic media. Legal experts have argued that a comprehensive framework would need to address creation, distribution, platform liability and victim remedies separately.
The consolidation of deepfake cases at the Supreme Court could provide clarity on whether existing laws are adequate or whether legislative intervention is required. The next hearing on 5 October is expected to determine the scope of the consolidated proceedings and whether additional parties will be impleaded.
Your Questions, Answered
Why has the Supreme Court stayed the Gujarat High Court deepfake PIL?
The Supreme Court stayed proceedings while considering the Centre's transfer petition to consolidate similar deepfake-related cases from multiple high courts at the apex court for unified adjudication.
When is the next hearing on the deepfake regulation case?
The Supreme Court has made the notice returnable on 5 October, when the transfer petition will be heard.
Which platforms were issued notices in the Gujarat deepfake PIL?
The Gujarat High Court in April sought responses from Meta India, Google, X, Reddit and Scribd on demands for measures to curb AI-generated deepfake material.
Does India have a law specifically regulating deepfakes?
India currently lacks a dedicated deepfake law. The IT Act addresses impersonation and obscene content but was not drafted for AI-generated synthetic media. MeitY has issued advisories but these are not legally binding.
