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.

Social media platform X informed the Delhi High Court that it had asked the Central government to review an order directing the blocking of 12 accounts.

X argued that the order, issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, was excessive and did not meet the legal requirements.

It stated that most of the content on these accounts did not fall within the grounds for blocking and that blocking entire accounts, instead of specific posts, was disproportionate.

X also pointed out that the account holders were not given an opportunity to be heard. The matter is currently pending before the Court.

The Central government has proposed draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 to increase oversight over online news and current affairs content.

The changes expand the Code of Ethics to cover not only publishers but also intermediaries and users who share such content. Authorities may examine and act on content even without receiving any complaint.

The proposal also requires platforms to follow directions, advisories, and guidelines issued by the government, linking compliance to their legal protection.

These amendments aim to strengthen enforcement and bring user-generated news content under a broader regulatory framework.

The Supreme Court cautioned that the practice of citing non-existent, AI-generated judgments has become a global "menace" that hampers the swift delivery of justice.

The Court made these observations while hearing a plea to expunge remarks made by the Bombay High Court against a litigant who cited a fake case generated by an AI tool.

The High Court had previously imposed a cost of ₹50,000, noting that searching for non-existent citations wastes precious judicial time.

While the Supreme Court allowed the remarks to be expunged as an indulgence, it warned all parties to cross-verify AI-aided research to ensure authenticity. 

[Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd. v. Deepak S/O Shivkumar Bahry]

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasized that Artificial Intelligence should act as a support system for the judiciary rather than a substitute for human decision-making.

Speaking at the Karnataka Judicial Academy, the CJI highlighted that while AI can efficiently handle data, manage records, and reduce procedural delays, the core judicial function of delivering judgments must remain in human hands to ensure accountability.

He warned that allowing technology to dominate verdicts could undermine public confidence and judicial independence.

Karnataka High Court Chief Justice also noted that while AI offers benefits like predictive analysis and faster dispute resolution, strict safeguards are essential to protect the integrity of the legal system.

The Supreme Court observed that certain digital platforms operate as "blackmailers," describing their actions as a form of "digital arrest."

A bench led by CJI Surya Kant made these remarks while hearing a petition seeking to regulate the police practice of posting photos of accused persons on social media.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that while mainstream media is largely responsible, many virtual platforms engage in blatant blackmail. The Court expressed concern over growing social media insensitivity and the "atomized" nature of online platforms.

The Court advised the petitioner to await state-framed guidelines on police media briefings before further proceedings.

[Hemendra Patel v. UOI]

The Karnataka High Court held that merely storing child sexual abuse material on a mobile phone can attract offences under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, even if the material was not transmitted or shared.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against an accused whose phone allegedly contained sexually explicit images and videos of children.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish and observed that the law criminalises even preparatory conduct such as storage or possession of such material.

[Sri Binoj P J v. State by Karnataka Commercial Street Police Station]

The Supreme Court of India will implement Artificial Intelligence-powered software to handle case listing and bench allocation, effectively removing human intervention from the process.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant initiated this reform following an internal probe that uncovered systemic failures and irregular case allocations within the registry.

The move aims to dismantle entrenched incumbency and modernize the Court’s technological infrastructure. This administrative overhaul follows a glaring lapse where a previously dismissed challenge was erroneously relisted before a fresh bench.

Alongside these digital reforms, the registry has undergone an unprecedented wave of interdepartmental staff transfers to ensure transparency and efficiency.

[Irfan Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

A sitting female judge of the Bombay High Court fell victim to a sophisticated online fraud, losing approximately ₹6.02 lakhs to an unknown fraudster.

According to the FIR lodged at Cuffe Parade Police Station, the judge was attempting to redeem credit card reward points when she dialed a number found on Google.

The fraudster, posing as an HDFC Bank representative, prompted her to install a malicious ".apk" file on an Android device. Once the judge entered her card details, several unauthorized transactions were immediately initiated.

The Mumbai Police have registered a case under Sections 66, 66C, and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

Kerala High Court issued notice to Digi Yatra Foundation and the Central government following a PIL raising data protection concerns regarding the 'Digi Yatra' system at airports.

The Bench considered allegations that the collection and processing of sensitive passenger data may lack adequate safeguards.

The petitioner sought interim directions to ensure strict compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Additionally, the Court asked the Union Government to clarify if a Data Protection Board has been formally constituted under the new law.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 19, 2026.

[C R Neelakandan v. UOI & Ors.]