Delhi HC grants time to Centre to respond to PIL on AI and deepfakes regulation

New Delhi, Jan 8: The Delhi High Court on Monday granted the Centre two weeks to respond to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the absence of regulations for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and deepfake technologies in the country.

Filed by advocate Chaitanya Rohilla through advocate Manohar Lal, the PIL seeks a directive for the Centre to identify and block websites providing access to deepfakes and AI, along with the establishing guidelines for their regulation.

The court stressed on the large dimension of the matter and noted that the Union of India would be best suited to frame rules in response to the PIL.

“This matter has a large dimension so we thought the Union of India would be the best to frame rules. Let the UoI apply its mind first,” the bench, of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora, said, and listed the matter for further hearing on February 19.

In December last year, the high court had sought Central government’s stand on the same PIL. The PIL urges the court to ensure fair implementation of AI and issue guidelines for access to AI and deepfakes in accordance with the fundamental rights as mentioned in the Constitution.

A bench of acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna had, during the last hearing, acknowledged the complexity of AI and deepfake issues, stating that these are challenging areas to address, and stressed the importance of understanding technology’s significance, and recognising its benefits in certain aspects.

The Centre’s counsel had noted that the matters raised in the PIL fall within the realm of lawmaking, and the government is already addressing them.

The court had, however, observed that finding a solution to the issues requires balancing conflicting interests, involving extensive deliberations.

On the PIL, which is addressing various concerns, including defining AI, risks associated with AI systems, the deceptive nature of deepfakes, and the intersection of AI with personal data protection, the bench had granted time to the Centre’s counsel to gather instructions on the matter.