The Gujarat High Court issued notices to major social media intermediaries, including Meta, Google, X, Reddit, and Scribd, regarding a PIL seeking a regulatory framework to curb AI-generated deepfakes.

The Bench observed that while legal frameworks like the IT Rules exist, the primary issue is the weak and inconsistent enforcement by platforms.

The Court directed the intermediaries to report on their compliance with statutory due diligence and instructed them to integrate with the government's SAHYOG portal for real-time coordination with law enforcement. 

The petitioner argued that unchecked synthetic media poses a significant threat to public order and democratic processes.

[Vikas Vijay Nair v. State of Gujarat & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to remove unauthorized video recordings of Arvind Kejriwal arguing his recusal application before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

Court officials confirmed that the recording and publishing of court proceedings violate high court rules on online hearings.

The action follows the viral spread of footage from April 13, where Kejriwal argued for over an hour seeking the judge's recusal from the excise policy case.

The Court emphasized that it consistently takes cognisance of such breaches across all social media platforms to maintain judicial decorum.

[CBI v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a PIL challenging Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which significantly restricts the Right to Information (RTI).

Petitioners argued that the amendment creates an absolute exemption for "personal information," removing the earlier "public interest override."

They contend this prevents marginalized communities from accessing critical records like muster rolls and beneficiary lists essential for securing welfare entitlements.  The plea seeks interim relief against the masking or deletion of existing data on transparency portals.

A Bench will now determine whether this law unconstitutionally prioritizes state-held privacy over democratic accountability.

[Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed a petitioner challenging Instagram’s decision to remove end-to-end encryption from direct messages to first approach the Data Protection Board of India.

The Court held that statutory remedies under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.

It granted urgency, directing the Board to pass a reasoned order within 15 days, ahead of the proposed May 2026 rollback.

The plea argued that removal of encryption violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.

The Central Government and Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court on Friday that social media platform X could lose its "safe harbour" protection for failing to remove allegedly offensive tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub.

The Centre argued that X had "actual knowledge" of the content through police notices and a trial court order directing an FIR against Ayyub. Under the IT Rules, 2021, such knowledge triggers a statutory obligation for intermediaries to remove unlawful content.

The Court previously described the tweets regarding Hindu deities & Savarkar, as "highly derogatory and communal."

The Court has directed the authorities to ensure interim takedown orders are executed.

[Amita Sachdeva v. X Corp & Ors.]

A Delhi court has granted bail to Ayush Varshney, CTO of Darwin Labs, in the multi-crore GainBitcoin cryptocurrency scam.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mayank Goel observed there was "no iota of evidence" that Varshney directly induced investors or received illicit funds.

While the CBI alleged he developed the technical infrastructure for the fraud, the Court noted his role appeared limited to providing technical services. Rejecting concerns over evidence tampering, the judge highlighted that Varshney had been on anticipatory bail since 2019 without misuse.

The ruling emphasized that bail is not punitive and the liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed indefinitely while awaiting the arrest of absconding co-accused.

[Ayush Varshney v. CBI]

The Delhi Police have revealed that Shrinivas Luis, a 47-year-old arrested from Mysuru, sent seven hoax bomb threat emails to the Supreme Court and over 50 to the Delhi High Court.

An analysis of 1,500 emails sent by Luis over the past year showed he targeted High Courts across India, including Mumbai, Karnataka, and Gujarat, and even institutions abroad.

Investigators found that Luis, a former law student, harbored deep resentment against the judiciary and used VPNs to mask his identity, though he was eventually tracked through non-encrypted emails.

Police have seized laptops and mobile phones, noting that the accused was reportedly suffering from depression.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that social media intermediaries cannot remain "mute spectators" when online illegality is reported.

Court emphasized that platforms have a positive, continuing obligation under the IT Act and Intermediary Guidelines to act expeditiously once unlawful content is brought to their notice.

The Court clarified that "safe harbour" protection under Section 79 is conditional upon exercising due diligence and removing offending material promptly. 

Highlighting the "enduring digital scar" left by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, the Court directed authorities to coordinate with Meta Platforms for the permanent removal of the content and the suspension of responsible accounts.

[Mohan Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]

The Gujarat High Court has implemented a strict policy prohibiting judges and court staff from using Artificial Intelligence for drafting orders, preparing judgments, or any substantive judicial reasoning.

Framed under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution, the policy fastens personal liability on judicial officers for any AI-assisted outputs, ensuring that technology does not replace human conscience.

While AI use is barred from evaluative tasks like assessing evidence credibility, it remains permissible for limited assistive purposes such as legal research and administrative automation, provided all results are verified against authoritative primary sources.

The policy further mandates strict data privacy, banning the entry of sensitive personal information into public AI tools.

A Delhi court granted bail to 34-year-old Mujahid Jamal Shaikh, who was accused of posting an AI-morphed image depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi bowing to actor Shah Rukh Khan.

Additional Sessions Judge of the Patiala House Courts noted that the accused has deep roots in society and no prior criminal record.

The Court observed that since the evidence is primarily electronic and the petitioner's mobile phone is already seized, there is no risk of evidence tampering.

While the Delhi Police allAn eged the post could promote disharmony, the Court prioritized procedural cooperation and ordered an inquiry into the authenticity of certain arrest documents.

[State of Delhi v. Mujahid Jamal Shaikh]

A Mumbai Small Causes Court judge recently filed a police complaint after being defrauded of ₹93,000 by a cybercriminal posing as a Samsung customer care executive.

The judge, seeking help for a display issue, contacted a number found via a Google search.

The fraudster instructed the judge to download an application file (APK) and transfer ₹20 to "verify" the service request. Shortly after, unauthorized transactions totaling ₹93,000 were diverted from the judge’s bank account to a third-party wallet.

This incident follows similar high-profile scams targeting judicial officers, highlighting the rising risks of phishing and malicious software.

The Delhi High Court pulled up actor Richa Chadha and certain media platforms for sharing and amplifying unverified allegations of sexual misconduct against a man, terming the act as “digital vigilantism.”

The Court observed that circulating such serious claims without verification can cause irreparable damage to a person’s reputation.

Emphasising the need for responsible speech, especially on digital platforms, the Court clarified that freedom of expression does not extend to spreading unverified accusations.

It ordered the removal of defamatory content and restrained the parties from publishing or circulating similar allegations in the future.