Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Narendra Kumar Goswami vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).300/2025
NARENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
Date : 16-05-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioner, who is an advocate and a member of the
U.P. Bar Council, has filed the instant Writ Petition in public
interest, with the following prayers:
“A. WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING:
1. Union of India (Ministry of Electronics & Information
Technology);
a. Framing of Rules under IT Act, 2000:
“Direct the Respondent No. I to frame rules under Section
87(2)(zg) of the IT Act, 2000, within 60 days, mandating:
(i) Watermarking of all Al-generated content (images, audio,
Signature Not Verified
video) with metadata disclosing origin, tools used, and
creator identity, as per China’s Deep Synthesis Provisions
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.05.17
15:18:54 IST
Reason:
(Annexure-Fl 1);
(ii) A 24-hour takedown mechanism for deepfakes, mirroring
Ride 3(l)(h)(vii) of IT Rules, 2021 (CSAM protocols), with
penalties under Section 45 of the IT Act for non-compliance;
2
(iii) Algorithmic audits of AI platform,s quarterly, conducted
by CERT-In empanelled auditors (CIAD-2024-0060, Annexure-PIO).
”
b. Establishment of AI Regulation Body:
“Constitute a ‘National AI Regidation Authority’ under Section
88 of the IT Act, chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge,
with members from NITI Aayog, CERT-In, and academia, to
oversee compliance, akin to the body in M.C. Mehta V. Uol
(1986) 2 SCC 176.”
2. Election Commission of India:
a. Deepfake Monitoring Cell under Article 324:
“Direct Respondent No. 2 to establish, within 30 days, a
Deepfake Monitoring Cell’ with powers to:
(i) Pre-certify all political advertisements using AI tools
(as per ADR v. Uol, (2002) 5 SCC 294);
(ii) Issue real-time takedown orders to platforms under Rule
16 of Conduct of Elections Rides, 1961;
(iii) Maintain a public repository of debunked deepfakes
(Annexure-P6, PI5).”
b. Model Code of Conduct (MCC) Amendments:
“Include in the MCC a prohibition on undisclosed AI-generated
content during elections, enforceable under Article 324, with
penalties under Section 171GIPC for violations.”
3. Minister of Home Affairs:
a. National Security Protocol: “Direct Respondent No. 3 to
develop, within 90 days, a National Protocol on AI Threats’
under Section 66F IT Act (cyber terrorism), including:
(i) A dedicated cyber-forensics unit under NIA to investigate
foreign-origin deepfakes (Annexure-P8,P15);
(ii) Mandatory reporting of deepfake incidents _ by platforms
to CERT-In under Section 70B(5) IT Act.”
b. Law Enforcement Training: “Implement training modules for
police on deepfake detection, and FIR registration under
Sections 419/500 IPC, in collaboration with NICFS. ”
4. Ministry of Education:
3
“Launch a National Deepfake Literacy Mission’ under Samagra
Shiksha Abhiyan, integrating Al/digital literacy in NCERT
curriculum (Class VI-XII) within 12 months, with funding
under Article 21 A.”
B. DECLARATORY RELIEFS:
“Declare that the Respondents’ failure to regulate Al-
generated deepfakes violates:
(i) Privacy/dignity under Article 21 (K.S. Piittaswamy,
2017);
(ii) Voters’ right to truth under Article 19(l)(a) (PUCL V.
Uol 2003);
(iii) Equality under Article 14 (Navtej Singh Johar, 2018).”
“Declare that the IT Act, 2000, is inadequate to address
deepfakes, necessitating judicial guidelines under Vishaka v.
Rajasthan (1997).”
C. EXPERT COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT:
“Constitute a 5-menaber court-monitored committee
(Chairperson: Retd. SC Judge; Members: DG-CERT-In, ECI
Secretary, DG-NIA, Director-IIT Delhi), to:
(i) Draft model AI regulation legislation within 90 days;
(ii) Submit quarterly compliance reports to this Hon’ble
Court.”
D. INTERIM MEASURES (UNDER ARTICLE 142):
“Pending final adjudication, direct all social media
platforms(as defined under IT Rules, 2021) to:
(i) Label all Al-generated content with ‘This is synthetic
media’ disclaimers;
ii) Submit fortnightly compliance reports to CERT-In;
(iii) Exempt satire/parody per S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan
Ram (1989).”
E. GENERAL RELIEF:
“Pass any other order(s) this Hon’ble Court deems fit
to secure electoral integrity and fundamental rights. ”
2. It has been brought to our notice that on these very
issues, a Public Interest Litigation and some other connected
4
matters are under the active consideration of a Division Bench
headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi.
Some of the proceedings, including the filing of a response by the
Union of India, have also been apprised to us.
3. Keeping in view the fact that one of the High Courts is
seized of the matter and some effective proceedings have already
been held, we do not deem it necessary to entertain this parallel
proceeding. The petitioner is, accordingly, relegated to the High
Court of Delhi with liberty to seek his impleadment and assist the
High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15596/2023 (Chaitanya Rohilla
vs. Union of India) and other connected cases.
4. We request the High Court to accord audience to the
petitioner and consider the valuable suggestions as may be given by
him.
5. With liberty aforementioned, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[ad_1]
Source link