The Gujarat High Court has asked the Central and State governments to respond to a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the use of AI-generated deepfakes. The petition raises concerns over potential risks to privacy, personal reputation, and public order from the creation and distribution of digitally manipulated content.
The PIL refers to instances where AI-generated videos and images could misrepresent individuals, including both public figures and private citizens. Petitioners highlighted that without regulation, deepfake technology could affect social stability, democratic processes, and personal credibility. The court underlined the importance of assessing whether existing laws are adequate to address these emerging challenges.
During the proceedings, the bench requested both governments to clarify the mechanisms in place to monitor and regulate AI-generated content. Authorities were asked to provide details on current regulatory guidelines, enforcement practices, and any planned policy measures aimed at preventing misuse. The court also sought information on whether preventive protocols exist to ensure accountability for those creating or distributing misleading content.
AI-powered deepfakes can convincingly imitate real-life appearances and speech, making detection increasingly difficult. The PIL calls for a structured framework to hold individuals or organisations accountable under applicable law. The court stated it would examine the governments’ responses before deciding on further measures, which could include enhanced monitoring or preventive directives.
This case reflects growing judicial attention to challenges posed by AI technologies in India. While artificial intelligence is being adopted across sectors such as healthcare, finance, and education, the potential for misuse in creating deepfakes highlights the need for clear legal safeguards. The issue has drawn national attention, given the risks posed to personal security, public communication, and information integrity.
Further hearings are scheduled to evaluate the responses from the authorities. The case illustrates the ongoing challenge of managing advanced AI applications while safeguarding privacy, accountability, and public trust. Authorities are expected to submit detailed replies outlining regulatory measures and plans for future oversight. |
