Back
AI Voice Clone Claim: Orders Forensic Test of Alleged Call Recording
The has directed the to conduct a scientific examination of an alleged phone recording submitted by real estate company , after the defendant claimed it could be an AI-generated voice clone.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order while hearing an application filed by alleging of an earlier court order dated .
Court Orders CFSL Analysis After Defendant Alleges AI-Generated Voice
The court was hearing an application under filed by BPTP. , appearing for the plaintiff, stated that defendant Nitin Naresh had allegedly made a phone call to Jai Shankar, the company's authorised representative, which appeared to be an attempt to extort money and violated the court's earlier order.
The company's counsel played the approximately 12-minute-long recording before the court and sought action against the defendants for alleged .
Defendant Claims Recording is AI-Generated, Offers to Submit for Analysis
However, Naresh, appearing in person, denied having any such conversation and claimed that the recording could be an AI-generated clone of his voice, which had been modulated. He argued that the application did not contain the requisite certificate under , and that the recording could not be admitted into evidence without it.
He voluntarily requested that the recording be sent to a forensic laboratory for scientific examination to establish its authenticity.
Court's Observation: Serious Repercussions Require Verification
Taking note of the submissions, the court observed that the allegations could have serious repercussions and that it was necessary to ascertain the truthfulness and veracity of the recording before arriving at any conclusion.
“The allegations made in this application may have serious repercussions, and even before this Court can come to any conclusion, it would be apposite to ascertain as to the truthfulness and veracity of the said recording, which has been placed on record,” the Court said.
Court's Decision: Recording to CFSL, on Defendant
The court directed that the recording be transferred to a pen drive and handed over to the Registrar General of the High Court, who would seal it and transmit it to the CFSL. The Director, CFSL, CBI Headquarters, was requested to give priority to the request and generate a report within four weeks.
Additionally, defendant Naresh voluntarily stated that a could be passed against him. Accepting the said statement, the court directed him to maintain silence on the subject matter of the suit until the next date of hearing.
Implications for AI-Generated Evidence
This case highlights the emerging challenge of AI-generated voice clones in legal proceedings. The court's decision to order forensic analysis sets a precedent for how courts may handle disputed audio evidence where authenticity is questioned due to AI technology.
The matter will next be heard on .
