Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the Centre’s response on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressing the crucial issue of artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake technologies' non-regulation in India.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna acknowledged the complexity of the matter, emphasizing that the government might be better positioned to address and resolve the intricacies involved in regulating these technologies.

"This technology is now available in the borderless world. How do you control the net? I can't police it that much. After all, the freedom of the net will be lost. So there are very important balancing factors involved in this. You have to arrive at a solution that balances all the interests. It is only the government, with all its resources, that can do it. They have the data, they have the wide machinery, and they have to make a decision about it. It is a very, very complicated issue. It's not a simple issue," observed Acting Chief Justice Manmohan.

The court further highlighted that while deepfakes and AI present challenges, they also serve beneficial purposes in specific domains.

"When they make films, especially war movies, deepfakes are very important. With one person, they show 1000 replicas of that person," remarked the court, acknowledging the positive applications of these technologies.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on January 8, 2024. 

The petitioner, Advocate Chaitanya Rohilla, has filed the PIL through Advocate Manohar Lal.

The PIL underscores the pressing necessity for regulatory frameworks governing these technologies, drawing attention to their potential far-reaching consequences.

The PIL delves into several key issues, including the absence of regulations for AI and deepfakes, the need for precise definitions of AI, associated risks, the deceptive nature of deepfakes, recent incidents, the intersection of AI with personal data protection, and India's global standing in the context of these emerging technologies. It accentuates the exponential growth of AI and its integration into society, identifying unique challenges that necessitate regulatory attention.

Of particular concern is the malicious use of AI, specifically through deepfakes, for misinformation and targeted propaganda, raising ethical considerations. Deepfakes, employing advanced deep learning techniques, are described as synthetic media forms with applications that present ethical challenges.

The PIL states that there are potential privacy violations and instances of economic and emotional harm resulting from insufficient safeguards against these technologies.

The petition draws parallels with global regulatory initiatives, citing the European Union's AI Act and voluntary safeguards in the United States. In the Indian context, existing laws are deemed insufficient to address manifestations of deepfake technology, and apprehensions persist regarding the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Highlighting specific instances of websites offering deepfake services, the PIL emphasizes the need for identification and regulation by relevant authorities.

The plea urges the court's intervention through a writ of mandate to address critical issues, including the identification and blocking of websites associated with deepfake AI, the issuance of dynamic injunctions, the formulation of guidelines for AI enforcement, and ensuring fair implementation of AI in society.

It also states that there is a legislative vacuum in this domain and stresses the court's role in safeguarding fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

In the prayer section, the petitioner has requested the Court to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to identify and block websites providing access to deepfake AI, issue dynamic injunctions, lay down guidelines for AI regulation, ensure fair implementation of AI, and issue guidelines for AI and deepfake access in strict accordance with Fundamental Rights.

Case Title: Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India