Back
Orders Takedown of Content Against Founder Vikas Divyakirti
In a significant ruling that underscores the growing judicial concern over AI-generated misinformation, the on Tuesday directed the removal of videos, fake social media profiles, and unauthorized lecture clips impersonating founder and former civil servant Vikas Divyakirti. The court, while passing the , reserved for later arguments the more nuanced question of whether re-captioned lecture videos that allegedly distort the speaker’s meaning amount to copyright or infringement.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the suit, did not mince words when addressing the role of social media platforms in enabling such abuse. “What's happening is, these are very powerful tools that you're creating. And then you hand these tools to ghosts. You don't know who's going to use the tools,” the judge remarked to Meta’s counsel, . Drawing a stark analogy, the judge added, “At least in our country, if you want to own a gun, they'll put you through a whole process. It's worse than a gun because it can kill your reputation. You can just hand it to anybody. Free of cost. Just download.”
The exchange occurred as , representing Divyakirti, described a feature that allows users to lift another person’s video and overlay their own performance, effectively converting someone else’s content into a personal reel. Pathak countered that Meta does not allow manipulation on its platform and argued that any platform permitting video downloads could be misused, but the judge remained skeptical, questioning the lack of user identification mechanisms.
The Three Categories of Infringement
Kapoor structured the infringing material into four categories, pressing for relief only where no competing rights existed. The court granted takedown orders for the first three categories. The first covered fake profiles and channels on YouTube and Instagram that used Divyakirti’s name, photograph, and banner to post content he never authored. Even where disclaimers stated the accounts were not official, Kapoor argued that such disclaimers did not cure the impersonation since the accounts still exploited his image and name to pass off posts as his own.
The second category comprised endorsement videos, in which Divyakirti’s likeness was manipulated to appear to promote betting and trading platforms. The third category involved straight reproductions of his lectures—clips ranging from 10 to 20 minutes with nothing added beyond a caption. The court directed that the listed URLs across these three categories be disabled or removed, with the final list to be embedded in the order.
The Reserved Fourth Category: Where Does Commentary End and Infringement Begin?
The fourth category proved more legally complex. These videos intercut Divyakirti’s lecture footage with titles or captions that attributed statements he allegedly never made. For instance, a caption reading “Killing Gandhi” was laid over unrelated remarks. Kapoor argued this constituted three separate violations: for unauthorized use of footage, a violation under for distortion prejudicial to reputation, and a violation for .
The court, however, noted that some of this material could be characterized as commentary or criticism, potentially attracting the defense under . “That's a question of argument,” Justice Bhambhani observed, pointing out that unlike the straightforward lecture reposts, these videos involved editorial choices, captions, spin, and framing that the defendants could argue are protected expression rather than mere reproduction. The question of where the line sits between legitimate criticism and infringement of Divyakirti’s persona remains to be argued in fuller detail at a later stage.
Jurisdictional Hurdles: Civil Court vs IT Act Grievance Mechanism
Meta’s counsel raised a , arguing that , and , establish a and mechanism for such disputes. bars civil courts from entertaining matters where the Act provides a remedy. Pathak contended that Divyakirti had an under these provisions, including an before the .
Kapoor resisted this, arguing that her claim rests on the , recognized by courts as a , and on , not on any violation of the IT Act itself. She added that the is overburdened and that “nothing happens in that forum.” The court did not rule on the jurisdictional question but flagged it as an issue requiring careful consideration given the overlap between the two jurisdictions.
Pathak also argued that platforms should not be made to defend takedown requests for content they did not create and suggested that uploaders themselves ought to be impleaded. He observed that rights holders rarely pursue damages against habitual offenders through , which might deter repeat violations. The judge was skeptical of that route, remarking, “Have you heard of ? If I give you even a 200 rupee decree today, go try to execute it. You'll be running in circles.”
Implications for Platform Accountability and
The ’s ruling marks another step in the evolving jurisprudence on in the digital age. The court has previously protected the of celebrities like Tabu, Allu Arjun, Mohanlal, and others, as well as public figures such as journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and podcaster Raj Shamani. The present case extends this protection to an educator and public intellectual, reflecting the court’s recognition that are not confined to film stars or cricketers but attach to any individual whose identity holds commercial or reputational value.
Justice Bhambhani’s pointed remarks about AI tools being “worse than a gun” highlight a growing judicial impatience with platforms that provide powerful content-creation and manipulation tools without adequate user verification. The court’s direction to Meta to furnish basic subscriber information and IP logs of the uploaders signals a proactive approach to tracing the persons behind the infringing accounts.
The reserved question regarding re-captioned lecture videos will be closely watched by legal practitioners and content creators alike. It forces a reckoning with the boundary between commentary and actionable misrepresentation, particularly in an era where AI tools can seamlessly alter the meaning of a speaker’s words. The outcome could shape how educational content is protected in the digital ecosystem and set a precedent for enforcement beyond traditional copyright claims.
The court has directed the parties to file a consolidated, updated list of offending URLs and will hear further arguments on the reserved category. Until then, the interim stands as a clear message: impersonation and endorsements will not be tolerated, and platforms must take responsibility for the tools they place in the hands of anonymous users.
Conclusion
The ’s in represents a robust judicial response to the misuse of AI-generated content and fake identities. By ordering the takedown of deepfakes, fake profiles, and unauthorized lecture clips, while reserving the more complex issue of re-captioned videos, the court has balanced the need for immediate protection of with the need for careful legal analysis of free speech and defenses. The case is likely to influence the ongoing debate on platform accountability, regulation, and the scope of in India’s digital landscape.
