Gujarat HC On Deepfakes And SAHYOG Portal
The Gujarat High Court has issued notice to intermediaries impleaded in a public interest litigation raising concerns over AI-generated deepfakes and digitally manipulated content, and has directed them to come onboard the SAHYOG portal developed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs. The order was passed on April 10, 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray in Vikas Vijay Nair v. State of Gujarat & Ors., R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 9 of 2026.
The petitioner, Vikas Vijay Nair, through Mr. Amit M. Panchal, raised concerns regarding the widespread creation and circulation of AI-generated videos on digital platforms, asserting that such content poses a serious threat to public order and the functioning of a healthy democracy. The petition also raised the issue of alleged inaction by the State in framing specific laws or regulatory mechanisms against deepfake, synthetic and digitally manipulated AI-generated media content. According to the order, the petitioner contended that the existing legal framework, including the Information Technology Act, 2000 and related provisions of the IPC, was inadequate to effectively regulate the creation, dissemination and circulation of such fake and AI-generated videos on digital platforms.
The Court recorded that the petition asserted an immediate need to curb the creation and use of such AI deepfakes, which, according to the petitioner, penetrate the social fabric quickly and create irreversible situations. The interim relief sought was a direction to restrain respondents 5 to 9, described as intermediaries running various online social media portals and websites where content creation and distribution take place.
The order notes that, on 24.02.2026, the Court had sought responses from respondents 1 to 4, namely the State Government, the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, on the requirement of prescribing a regulatory framework.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Amit M. Panchal. The State respondents were represented by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Advocate General, with Mr. G.H. Virk, Government Pleader and Mr. Vinay Vishen, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Ankit Shah appeared for respondents 3 and 4. The Bench also recorded that a photocopy of the notarised affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, had been supplied in Court, and directed counsel to file the original in the Registry within 24 hours.
In its affidavit, the State of Gujarat stated that the relevant regulatory architecture under the Information Technology Act, 2000 primarily operates through Section 69, dealing with interception, monitoring and decryption of information through computer resources; Section 69A, dealing with blocking of public access to information hosted in any computer resource; and Section 79, dealing with exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases. The Court extracted Section 79 in full and noted the submission of the learned Advocate General that Section 79(3)(b) makes it clear that an intermediary cannot claim exemption from liability if, upon receiving actual knowledge or being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that content is being used to commit an unlawful act, it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material.
The State further submitted that Section 69A empowers the Central Government or an authorised officer to direct an intermediary to block public access to information where such blocking is necessary in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to commission of cognizable offences relating to those grounds, with reasons recorded in writing. The affidavit also described the statutory workflow for blocking under Section 69A, including initiation by Government departments or law enforcement agencies through designated nodal officers, examination by the designated officer and committee, hearing where feasible, approval by the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and review by the Review Committee.
The State emphasised that Section 79 stands on a conceptually different footing from Sections 69 and 69A, being a liability-allocation provision that grants conditional “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries for user-generated content, subject to statutory conditions and due diligence obligations. The order records the State’s submission that intermediaries lose this immunity if they fail to comply with takedown obligations upon receiving lawful notice under Section 79(3)(b).
IT Rules, actual knowledge, and deepfake obligations
The State also referred to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended by the Amendment Rules, 2026 with effect from 20.02.2026, stating that the obligations of intermediaries in relation to synthetically generated information are now clearly delineated. The Court further recorded the State’s reliance on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, which read down the scope of “actual knowledge” under Section 79 to avoid unconstitutional chilling effects on free speech. According to the order, the Supreme Court clarified that takedown obligations under Section 79(3)(b) are triggered only upon an order of a competent court or a lawful notification or direction by the appropriate Government or its authorised agency.
The Court noted the State’s submission that law enforcement agencies are facing serious operational challenges in implementing notices issued under Section 79(3)(b), including delays, repeated procedural requirements, non-compliance, repeated demands for additional information, and responses from intermediaries claiming that URLs cannot be located even where the content remains accessible through the same links. The State also suggested that appropriate rules be framed to prescribe expedited response timelines, immediate blocking obligations, restoration mechanisms where content is later found unobjectionable, real-time coordination, escalation mechanisms, robust takedown protocols for deepfake content irrespective of disclaimers, and a rule making it clear that internal platform policies cannot override compliance with directions issued under Indian law.
Union of India’s stand and the SAHYOG portal
In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, it was submitted that policy and regulatory matters concerning intermediaries, digital platforms and online content regulation primarily fall within the domain of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, while the Ministry of Home Affairs is concerned with cybercrime, including coordination of law enforcement agencies, capacity building and support in detection, prevention, investigation and prosecution.
The Union of India further stated that the legal, technological, institutional and enforcement mechanisms created by the Government of India already provide a framework to address misuse of synthetic and manipulated digital content, including deepfakes. The order records that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified on 10.02.2026 and effective from 20.02.2026, introduced two sets of obligations: one applicable to all intermediaries under Rule 3, and another imposing enhanced accountability and due diligence obligations on Significant Social Media Intermediaries under Rule 4.
The Court also noted the Union’s reference to Rule 3(3)(a), inserted by the 2026 amendments, which mandates intermediaries to deploy reasonable and appropriate technical measures, including automated tools or other suitable mechanisms, to ensure users are not permitted to create, generate, modify, alter, publish, transmit, share or disseminate synthetically generated information that violates any law in force. The provision specifically requires intermediaries to prevent dissemination of high-risk categories of unlawful synthetically generated information.
A significant part of the Union’s affidavit concerned the SAHYOG portal, described in the order as a centralised unified platform created by the Ministry of Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications for routing intimations under Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. The portal has been operational since October 2024, and is meant to facilitate immediate, coordinated and time-bound action by bringing authorised law enforcement agencies and intermediaries onto a single platform for content takedown, access to subscriber information, logs and judicial evidence. The order records that 524 IT intermediaries have been onboarded on the portal, including respondents 5 and 6, and that it has facilitated lawful data requests from more than 16,000 police stations across States and Union Territories.
The Court further recorded that by Gazette notification dated 13.03.2024, the Central Government designated the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs, as the authorised agency under Section 79(3)(b) to notify intermediaries of unlawful content being used to commit offences. It was also asserted that some intermediaries, including respondent No. 7, had not yet onboarded or fully integrated with the SAHYOG portal and often failed to respond to statutory notices. The affidavit specifically alleged that respondent No. 7 had been issued 94 intimations involving 1160 URLs containing unlawful content, including synthetically generated information, but had given formal responses to only 13 intimations, despite partial disabling of some URLs. The Union submitted that such conduct amounted to breach of the enhanced due diligence obligations under the amended IT Rules of 2026 and impeded effective law enforcement.
The order also records the Union’s reliance on Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611, especially paragraph 254, to emphasise the role of intermediaries in expeditiously removing or disabling access to unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge or lawful notification. It was further submitted that the SAHYOG portal had received judicial recognition from the Karnataka High Court in X Corp. v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition No. 7405 of 2025.
Court’s observations and interim directions
After considering the affidavits of the State Government and the Union of India, the Bench observed that the issues requiring consideration essentially concerned the strict enforcement and uniform implementation of the existing statutory regime, especially in light of the concerns expressed regarding compliance by intermediaries. The Court then deemed it fit to issue notice to respondents 5 to 9, returnable on 08.05.2026, and directed the petitioner to take steps for service within one week.
The Court directed that respondents 5 to 9 must answer not only the petitioner’s case, but also the stand of the State and Central Governments regarding the practical implementation of the legislative framework and institutional mechanisms developed to ensure strict compliance with due diligence obligations under the Amended Rules of 2026. It further directed that, in the meantime, respondents 5 to 9 shall ensure that they come onboard the SAHYOG portal for better coordination and time-bound action by bringing all authorised law enforcement agencies and intermediaries on a single platform, and to ensure swift action and response to statutory notices under Section 79(3)(b) in strict compliance with the IT Rules, 2021 as amended by the Amendment Rules of 2026. The Court observed that effective and meaningful responses by intermediaries would be key to the due diligence obligations enforced under the statutory framework. It also directed Mr. Ankit Shah to file the response of respondent No. 3, the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Union of India, by the next date, and listed the matter on 08.05.2026.
