The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent a compliance notice to X Corp after observing the misuse of AI-based services like Grok and xAI services to host, generate, publish, transmit, share, or upload obscene, nude, indecent, or explicit content, including obscene images or videos of women through synthetic outputs and prompts.

MeitY directed a review of Grok’s technical and governance frameworks, instant removal of violating content without evidence interference, enforcement of account suspension or termination for policy violators, and submission of an action taken report (ATR) within 72 hours.

It warned of action without further notice under the IT Act, IT Rules, BNSS, BNS and other applicable laws, and loss of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act for non-compliance.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to actor and Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan, restraining the misuse of his name, image, voice, and likeness for commercial gain without consent.

The Court held that unauthorised merchandise, impersonation pages, generative AI content, and deepfakes violate his personality and publicity rights.

It ordered e-commerce platforms to delist infringing products and disclose seller KYC details, directed intermediaries to disable access to offending links, and asked websites to take down links within a week. Google and Meta were directed to share subscriber and IP login details to identify anonymous violators.

The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on February 9 for completion of pleadings

The Madras High Court asked the central government to consider examining a law similar to Australia’s model for monitoring children’s internet usage.

The Bench made these remarks in a PIL filed by S Vijayakumar, who raised concerns over rising internet exposure among children and stressed the need for parental regulation tools.

The Court observed that, until such legislation is passed, authorities must intensify and accelerate awareness campaigns across all available media to address the menace of child pornography.

It also noted that child rights commissions carry a statutory duty to expand child rights literacy and ensure safeguards, including parental tools like parental windows and control apps, are effectively implemented.

[S Vijayakumar v. UOI & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Shilpa Shetty Kundra in a personality rights case involving morphed and AI-generated deepfake content.

The Court directed social media platforms, AI-linked defendants, and John Doe entities to delete or disable access to URLs, links, posts, and websites hosting manipulated images or videos.

It held that circulation of such content without knowledge or consent could affect her privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Shetty had sought a broad injunction, deletion of infringing content, and ₹5 lakh in damages from some defendants.

The Calcutta High Court observed that IndiaMART has made out a strong prima facie case against OpenAI for allegedly excluding its listings from ChatGPT search results, while allowing competing platforms to appear.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur noted that such selective exclusion may cause loss of goodwill, reputation, and commercial injury.

However, the Court declined to grant interim relief at this stage, holding that doing so would amount to granting final relief without hearing OpenAI.

The matter has been listed for January 13, after completion of fresh service on the respondents.

[IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd v. OpenAI Inc & Ors.]

New York Times reporter John Carreyrou, joined by five writers, has filed a copyright lawsuit in a California federal court against Google, OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic, Perplexity, and xAI.

The authors allege that their copyrighted books were used without consent to train large language models powering chatbots.

They have chosen not to pursue the matter as a class action, arguing that individual copyright claims tend to lose value in collective settlements.

The suit is notable for being the first to name Elon Musk’s xAI as a defendant, adding to the growing wave of litigation challenging the use of copyrighted works in AI training.

The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of obscene online content falsely depicting actor R Madhavan and webpages selling merchandise using his name without authorisation.

The interim directions were passed in a suit filed by Madhavan seeking protection of his personality rights.

After examining the flagged URLs, the Court ordered immediate takedown of obscene material and unauthorised commercial use of the actor’s name and likeness. Social media intermediaries were also directed to disclose basic subscriber details of the alleged infringers within three weeks.

The Court, however, deferred passing directions on certain AI-generated fan content and stated that the issue would be considered separately.

[Ranganathan Madhavan v. G Fimlz Studioz & Ors.]

Indian Kanoon has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order directing removal of articles and URLs relating to a money laundering accused who was later exonerated.

The trial court had invoked the “right to be forgotten”, observing that continued online availability of case records caused harm to dignity despite the acquittal.

The High Court issued notice on the plea but declined to stay the trial court’s order, noting that broader questions on the right to be forgotten are already pending before the Supreme Court.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 15, 2026.

The Regulation of Deepfake Bill, 2024, introduced as a private member’s Bill in Parliament, seeks to criminalise the creation and circulation of malicious deepfake content made without consent.

The Bill mandates prior consent of individuals depicted in AI-generated audio or video content and requires digital watermarking to ensure traceability of synthetic media.

While it declares certain forms of deepfake creation and dissemination as criminal offences, the Bill does not prescribe fixed jail terms or fines. Instead, penalties are to be determined on a case-by-case basis through rules framed on the recommendations of a proposed Deepfake Task Force.

The Task Force is tasked with assessing misuse, prevalence, and national security risks posed by deepfake technology.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has clarified that television broadcasters must continue to comply with the 12-minute advertisement cap per clock hour, notwithstanding the ongoing judicial challenge to the regulation.

TRAI said the limit flows from the Quality of Service Regulations, 2013, read with the 2012 Advertisement Cap Regulations and the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The authority reiterated that while the Delhi High Court has restrained coercive action, there is no express stay on the operation of the ad cap.

The clarification follows show-cause notices issued on November 18, giving broadcasters 15 days to respond. Broadcasters have flagged financial stress and declining revenues.

The matter is listed for hearing on January 27, 2026.

The Karnataka High Court has sought the Enforcement Directorate’s response on whether it would consider de-freezing the bank accounts of online gaming platform WinZo Games upon the furnishing of a bank guarantee worth ₹505 crore.

The query arose during the hearing of WinZo’s petition challenging the freezing of its accounts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). WinZo contended that the freezing of such a substantial amount was disproportionate and severely affected its business operations.

The company argued that it was willing to secure the alleged amount through a bank guarantee while the investigation continues.

The Court asked the ED to clarify its position on the proposal and directed WinZo to place detailed financial disclosures on record. The matter will be heard further.

The Delhi High Court has held that an individual’s right to dignity and reputation under Article 21 can prevail over the freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

Upholding a trial court order, the Court directed the de-indexing of news articles reporting a banker’s arrest after he was discharged from an Enforcement Directorate case.

Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the continued digital availability of such reports causes lasting and disproportionate reputational harm.

Rejecting the argument that merely adding updates was sufficient, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by Indian Express, affirming that removal from search results was necessary in the circumstances.

[IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd v. Nitin Bhatnagar & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to a tech company after finding prima facie use of pirated and unauthorised CCTV surveillance software at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry’s Udyog Bhawan premises.

Justice Tejas Karia noted that the software licence was issued for a different location and that no purchase order or valid licence permitted its use at the Ministry site.

Highlighting public interest and security concerns, the Court restrained further unauthorised use of the software.

It also appointed local commissioners to inspect the premises and seize systems found to be running the infringing surveillance software.

[X v. Ashok Kumar]

A private member’s Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha proposes penalties of up to ₹5 crore for the misuse of artificial intelligence systems.

The Artificial Intelligence (Ethics and Accountability) Bill, 2025, introduced by BJP MP Bharti Pardhi, seeks to create a statutory framework to regulate the development and deployment of AI in India.

The Bill proposes penalties for unauthorised AI-based surveillance, discriminatory algorithmic decision-making, and a lack of transparency in AI-driven processes. It also provides for setting up a Central Ethics Committee on Artificial Intelligence to frame ethical guidelines, monitor compliance, and investigate complaints.

The proposed law places limits on AI surveillance, mandates audits to prevent algorithmic bias and allows affected individuals to file complaints before the Committee.