News Article

Indian Courts Tackle AI Deepfakes, GST Overreach, and Advocates' Rights in Landmark Week

New Delhi – In a week marked by significant judicial pronouncements, India's Supreme Court and various High Courts delivered a series of rulings that addressed pressing contemporary issues, from the menace of AI-generated deepfakes to the contentious turf wars between tax authorities and secured creditors. The judgments, spanning October 20-26, 2025, offer critical guidance on intellectual property, procedural fairness in tax law, the rights of legal professionals, and the primacy of secular laws in personal matters, signaling key trends in Indian jurisprudence.

The Bombay High Court's urgent intervention to protect actor Akshay Kumar from a realistic AI deepfake video emerged as a standout ruling, highlighting the judiciary's proactive stance on technology-driven threats. In contrast, multiple High Courts pushed back against procedural lapses by GST authorities, reinforcing the principles of natural justice. Meanwhile, a pivotal decision from the Supreme Court clarified the limits of the GST department's recovery powers once a statutory pre-deposit is made, providing much-needed relief to businesses navigating tax disputes.

Technology, Personality Rights, and the Deepfake Menace

In a case with far-reaching implications for celebrity rights and public safety, the Bombay High Court took a firm stand against the unauthorized use of artificial intelligence. Granting an ex-parte interim injunction in Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v. John Doe , Justice Arif S. Doctor ordered the immediate takedown of a deepfake video targeting actor Akshay Kumar.

The court held that Kumar possessed an "inherent and enforceable right to control, protect, and commercially exploit his personality." The judgment unequivocally stated that any unauthorized use violates his personality and publicity rights, as well as his fundamental right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This decisive action underscores the judiciary's recognition of personality rights as a distinct and protectable asset in the digital age and its willingness to issue swift remedies to curb the spread of malicious misinformation.

Similarly, in the realm of intellectual property, the Delhi High Court's Division Bench provided relief to the popular food chain WOW! MOMOS. In WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger , the court restrained the respondent from using the "WOW BURGER" mark, holding it to be deceptively similar. The court opined that "a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection was likely to get confused between the marks," reaffirming the classic tests for trademark infringement in the context of a competitive food and beverage market.

The Supremacy of Secured Creditors and Curbs on GST Powers

The financial and tax law landscape saw several crucial developments, led by the Supreme Court's decision in Deputy Commissioner ST & Ors v. Wingtech Mobile Communications . The apex court affirmed that once a taxpayer pays the mandatory 10% pre-deposit to file an appeal under GST law, recovery proceedings are automatically stayed. The ruling effectively bars GST authorities from attaching bank accounts or restraining funds post-deposit, providing a significant safeguard for businesses challenging tax demands.

This principle was echoed in a high-stakes battle between a secured creditor and tax authorities at the Karnataka High Court. In The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka , Justice Suraj Govindaraj decisively ruled that a bank's prior registered charge under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) prevails over a subsequent claim by the GST Department. The court established that the chronology of the charge determines priority, ordering the GST encumbrance removed from the mortgaged property. This judgment provides critical clarity for the banking sector, reinforcing the primacy of secured creditors in debt recovery proceedings.

Across the country, High Courts continued to scrutinize the conduct of GST officials, repeatedly striking down orders passed in violation of procedural fairness. * The Madras High Court in M/s.VMC Polychem LLP v. The Commercial Tax Officer invalidated an assessment, citing procedural delays and improper service of notices, and ordered the de-freezing of the taxpayer's bank accounts. * The Gauhati High Court in Diganta Kumar Deka v. The State of Assam held that a summary notice in Form DRC-01 cannot substitute a detailed and authenticated Show Cause Notice, quashing an order for violating mandatory legal requirements. * The Madhya Pradesh High Court , in Laxmi Motors v. State of M.P , went a step further by imposing a ₹25,000 personal cost on a GST officer for wrongly dismissing an appeal as time-barred, sending a strong message against administrative negligence.

Rights and Conduct of the Legal Fraternity

The judiciary also turned its lens inward, addressing issues pertinent to the legal profession itself. The Delhi High Court provided a significant victory for practicing advocates in B. K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corp. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed a 22-year-old complaint against a lawyer for using residential premises as an office, holding that such activities are not "commercial in nature." The court declared that classifying a lawyer's professional activities as commercial was "not only arbitrary but irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

In a different vein, the Jharkhand High Court demonstrated judicial grace in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand . Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi accepted a "sincere apology" from an advocate for hooliganism in open court and expunged contemptuous remarks from a previous order, stating, "Apology is accepted; he deserves a chance." This approach balances the need to maintain court decorum with a reformative outlook towards the conduct of its officers.

The Delhi High Court also commented on the perennial issue of judicial delays. While dismissing a petitioner’s application to recall a witness, Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked in Sohn Singh v. Dildar Singh , "it was high time that paradigm be changed by Courts and an impression across the society be dispelled that civil suits can be allowed to run for decades." This statement reflects a growing judicial impetus to streamline civil proceedings and combat dilatory tactics.

Navigating Personal Law and Procedural Justice

A landmark ruling from the Madras High Court in K. Heerajohn v. District Registrar clarified the legal framework for adoption within the Muslim community. Justice G. R. Swaminathan held that the secular Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act) prevails over Muslim Personal Law. The court reasoned that a combined reading of the JJ Act and Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which allows special provisions for women and children, establishes the supremacy of the statute. The ruling mandates that all adoptions, regardless of religion, must follow the procedure prescribed under the JJ Act and its regulations, affirming the trend of uniform secular laws governing the welfare of children.

In criminal jurisprudence, the Bombay High Court, in Ranganth Tulshiram Galande v. State of Maharashtra , granted default bail to accused persons due to the prosecution's failure to file a chargesheet within the stipulated 60-day period under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh criticized the Magistrate’s cryptic "seen" remark on the extension application, holding that any extension of detention beyond the prescribed period requires a "speaking and reasoned order." This decision reinforces the indefeasible right to default bail as a fundamental safeguard against prolonged pre-trial detention.

Collectively, these rulings paint a picture of a judiciary actively engaging with the complexities of a modernizing India—grappling with technological disruptions, ensuring administrative accountability, and harmonizing diverse legal frameworks to uphold justice and the rule of law.