The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking regulatory measures against AI-generated deepfakes, and directed the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court instead. The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh observed that the High Court has already been actively dealing with related issues and passing relevant directions.
The PIL was filed by Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, who appeared in person and urged the Court to constitute a Court-monitored Expert Committee to draft a model AI regulation law. He cited instances such as a deepfake video involving Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who was associated with ‘Operation Sindoor’, and pointed to the government’s earlier assurances about introducing legislation on deepfakes.
Justice Kant, addressing the petitioner, remarked, “We do not deem it necessary to entertain these parallel proceedings,” and advised him to seek impleadment in the ongoing Delhi High Court proceedings. The Court noted that the High Court is the appropriate forum at this stage and emphasized that any dissatisfaction with government responses or High Court directions could be challenged later before the Supreme Court.
The bench added that while the issue is serious and merits attention, public debates or media appearances are not a substitute for concrete legal action. “Cyber criminals are so swift, they’ll create another video by the time you step out of court,” Justice Kant observed, urging the petitioner to contribute meaningfully in the High Court proceedings.
The petition sought comprehensive regulatory measures, including:
-
Watermarking of all AI-generated content with metadata, modeled on China’s Deep Synthesis Provisions;
-
A 24-hour takedown mechanism for deepfakes with penalties for non-compliance;
-
Quarterly algorithmic audits of AI platforms by CERT-In empanelled auditors;
-
Establishment of an AI Regulation Body under Section 88 of the IT Act, chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge;
-
Creation of a Deepfake Monitoring Cell under the Election Commission to oversee political content;
-
Amendments to the Model Code of Conduct to prohibit undisclosed AI-generated campaign material;
-
A National Protocol on AI threats, a cyber-forensics unit under NIA, and mandatory reporting of deepfakes;
-
Police training modules on deepfake detection and legal procedures;
-
Integration of AI literacy in school curriculum under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.
The petitioner also contended that the failure of authorities to regulate deepfakes violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21, and sought judicial guidelines akin to those laid down in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
Case Title: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India & Ors.
*W.P.(C) No. 300/2025
