Back
Orders Takedown of Content Against Drishti IAS Founder, Flags
The has directed the immediate takedown of and impersonating content targeting Dr. Vikas Divyakirti, founder of the prominent , while underscoring the grave risks posed by AI-generated tools on social media platforms. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued summons in the suit and indicated that a detailed order with specific takedown directions would follow, marking another significant step in the evolving jurisprudence on in India.
Background: The Rise of Threats
Dr. Vikas Divyakirti, a former civil servant and popular educator with a substantial online following, approached the court seeking protection against a surge of malicious content. The suit alleged that unidentified individuals had created fake Instagram profiles using his images and had posted videos—manipulated clips that falsely depicted him in compromising or misleading situations. Additionally, unauthorized clips from his copyrighted lectures were being selectively used without license, prompting claims of and infringement.
The case arrives at a time when technology has become increasingly accessible, enabling bad actors to create convincing but fraudulent audio-visual content. The has been at the forefront of addressing such digital harms, having previously protected the of celebrities like Tabu, Yuvraj Singh, and Allu Arjun, as well as public figures such as journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and podcaster Raj Shamani.
Court Proceedings: Key Arguments and Observations
During the hearing,
, representing Divyakirti, argued that this was a clear case of infringement of
,
, and
, with no competing rights from any party. She emphasized that the selective use of lecture clips could not be defended under the
.
"Individuals were using clips of the lectures without authorisation or license. In such a case, no argument of fair use can be made,"
she submitted.
, the owner of Instagram, appeared through , who acknowledged that 11 of the 13 offending URLs were Instagram reels and could be directed to be taken down. However, he argued that Divyakirti had an under the and the , pointing to the for disputes up to ₹5 crore. He contended that the civil court's jurisdiction was absolutely barred under the .
Kapur countered that the was overburdened and ineffective, and that Divyakirti was not claiming violation of the but of his moral and , which are enforceable in a civil court. The court appeared to side with this view, questioning the adequacy of the .
A particularly striking moment came when Justice Bhambhani remarked on the dangerous nature of the tools Meta provides.
"Mr. Pathak, you are creating very powerful tools. And you are giving it in the hands of those who are ghosts. You don't know who is going to use these tools. In our country today, if one has to own a gun they will be put to whole [lot of formalities]. This [tools] is worse than a gun. It is available free of cost and anyone can download,"
the judge observed during a discussion on fake profiles lacking personal details.
Pathak responded by stating that intermediaries cannot demand more details than required by law, but the court’s concern highlighted the regulatory gap in verifying user identities on social media platforms.
Legal Analysis: Expanding the Scope of
The 's approach in this case builds on a robust line of precedents protecting . , which include the right to control the commercial use of one's name, image, and likeness, have traditionally been invoked by celebrities against unauthorized endorsements. However, the court has extended this protection to cover deepfakes and , recognizing that such content can cause irreparable harm to reputation and professional standing.
The court also clarified that the does not bar civil suits for infringement of moral and . This is crucial because it allows individuals to seek and damages in a regular civil court, bypassing the potentially slow and ineffective alternative dispute resolution mechanisms under the IT framework. The court ordered Meta to furnish basic subscriber information and IP logs of the uploaders, enabling Divyakirti to identify and pursue the perpetrators.
The case also raises important questions about . While provides to intermediaries for third-party content, it requires them to expeditiously remove upon . The court's direction to take down the offending URLs aligns with this obligation, but the broader issue of platform accountability for generation tools remains unresolved.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Digital Ecosystem
For legal professionals, this judgment reinforces the need to consider as a distinct cause of action in cases involving digital and deepfakes. It provides a template for seeking interim injunctions and disclosure orders against anonymous wrongdoers. Practitioners should note the court's willingness to disregard the argument when the core claim involves non-statutory rights.
The decision also sends a strong signal to social media platforms that they cannot hide behind procedural defenses when their tools are misused. The court's observation about the lack of identity verification for account creation may prompt legislative or regulatory action, such as mandating stronger authentication for new accounts.
Moreover, the case underscores the growing judicial recognition of the harm caused by deepfakes beyond celebrity contexts. Public figures like educators, journalists, and political leaders are increasingly vulnerable, and the courts are stepping in to provide swift relief. This trend is likely to continue as AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated.
Conclusion: A Step Forward in Digital Rights
The ’s interim order in represents a significant victory for in the digital age. By ordering the takedown of content and questioning the adequacy of alternative remedies, the court has reaffirmed its role as a protector of individual dignity against technological abuse. A detailed order is awaited, which will further clarify the scope of relief and the obligations of intermediaries. As deepfakes become a pervasive challenge, this judgment offers a timely reminder that the law must evolve to safeguard fundamental rights in an increasingly virtual world.
