Back
Stays Proceedings on PIL as Centre Seeks Transfer
The on Tuesday stayed proceedings before the in a seeking regulation of and , issuing notice on the Union government's plea to transfer the case to the apex court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana passed the while hearing (Civil) No. 2597/2026 filed by the and another petitioner. The returnable date has been fixed for .
A Bench Steps In to Consolidate Parallel Proceedings
The order came after , appearing for the Union government, submitted that the has already interdicted similar proceedings before other High Courts, and those matters are now pending before the apex court. reiterated during the hearing that a coordinated approach was necessary to avoid conflicting directions on the same regulatory framework.
The Court, without delving into the merits at this stage, directed that
"further proceedings in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 9/2026 (
) pending before the
shall remain stayed"
until the next hearing.
The Dilemma: AI Content and the Challenge for Existing Law
The underlying PIL, filed before the in , had raised urgent concerns about the proliferation of deepfakes and synthetically generated content circulating on major digital platforms. The High Court had issued notices to social media intermediaries including , , , and , directing them to respond to filed by both the and the Central government.
Those detailed the practical implementation of the existing legislative framework under the , as amended by the . The High Court had specifically asked intermediaries to ensure "swift action and response" to issued under , which governs time-bound for unlawful content.
The : A Central Pillar of Enforcement
A significant part of the dispute centres on the , a platform developed by the Central government that has been operational since . The portal is designed to route intimations under Section 79(3)(b) read with , facilitating coordinated and time-bound action by bringing law enforcement agencies and intermediaries onto a single platform.
According to submissions made before the , 524 IT intermediaries had already been onboarded to SAHYOG as of the last hearing, including and . However, had not yet fully integrated with the portal and was alleged to "fail to respond" to takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) — a gap the High Court had sought to address through interim directions.
The
, in its affidavit, had proposed a robust regulatory framework mandating an immediate coordination mechanism between investigating authorities and digital service providers. The State clarified that the objective
"is not to restrict legitimate expression, but to ensure that digital platforms are not misused for creation and dissemination of unlawful content capable of destabilizing public order or undermining democratic institutions."
A Unified Approach: The Case for Centralized Adjudication
The Union government's rests on the ground that multiple High Courts are simultaneously examining similar questions about intermediary compliance and regulation, creating the risk of inconsistent outcomes. By seeking to consolidate these matters before the , the Centre hopes to secure a uniform interpretation of the statutory regime governing .
The legal questions at the heart of the dispute include whether the existing under the IT Rules are sufficient to address the unique challenges posed by deepfakes, and whether platforms can be compelled to onboard government portals like SAHYOG as a condition of under .
What Lies Ahead
The has listed the matter for further hearing on . Until then, the proceedings remain frozen. The interim marks a significant moment in the evolving jurisprudence around synthetic content regulation, signalling the apex court's intent to retain control over a legal question that cuts across multiple jurisdictions and affects every major social media platform operating in India.
For now, intermediaries, law enforcement agencies, and civil society groups will watch closely as the prepares to hear arguments on whether the existing legal architecture can adequately police the boundary between legitimate expression and digitally manufactured harm.
