IMPACT OF AI IN THE FIELD OF IP AND IT’S GOVERNANCE

‘Artificial Intelligence’ is the second most common phrase we hear today, besides headlines about tariffs and trade wars dominating the news every other day. In today’s world, one can surely survive without a friend — but not without AI surrounding them. How one wrong prompt can make you suffer, and how an entire company can face a legal suit because of it, is precisely what this article examines.

This article critically explores every significant aspect revolving around AI: mental health, deepfakes, AI-facilitated financial scams, misinformation campaigns, and the generation of harmful content — and their impact on students and the vulnerable population. It examines AI governance and its profound impact on intellectual property laws, privacy, and personality rights, with a particular focus on the Indian legal system and illustrative case studies.

We will dive into different types of intellectual property, the laws governing artificial intelligence and privacy, and the solutions to curb their misuse in today’s fast-moving world. From a regulatory perspective, this article evaluates India’s response through mechanisms such as the Sahyog Portal, safe harbour provisions under the Information Technology Act, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. It also provides insights into the constitutional framework, examining implications for fundamental rights under Articles 14,¹ 19,² and 21³ of the Indian Constitution.”We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

— Albert Einstein

Artificial intelligence is transforming nearly every sector of society — from healthcare and education to entertainment and governance. It is abundantly clear that AI has taken a prominent place in intellectual property law as well, given that these tools are capable of generating artistic content, music, writing, illustrations, designs, and even entire films.

This poses a fundamental dilemma: Who owns those creations? Can AI systems be inventors? What if they infringe upon the privacy of users by accessing personal data without authorisation? Who will be held responsible, and what are the legal remedies available?

Let us understand this with the help of an example. I am sure you have seen Koi Mil Gaya and are familiar with the character Jaadu. We are not going to talk about aliens here — thankfully, we have not uncovered that aspect of this century yet. But my point is that the machine in that film, which worked on the commands given by its human operator, showed us that if a machine is not handled with proper care and caution, it can lead to deeply negative consequences. The point is that in the end we must understand that it is human beings who created these machines and AI systems — and we certainly cannot allow them to corrupt our minds. We need to be proactive in solving the problems they generate. AI tools provide the data; human experts provide the wisdom.

Personality Rights Abuse and the Invasion of Privacy

Personality rights safeguard an individual’s name, likeness, image, voice, signature, and other distinctive traits from unauthorised commercial exploitation. The Copyright Act, 1957⁴ grants performers both exclusive rights under Section 38A and moral rights under Section 38B, allowing them to control how their performances are reproduced and to object to any distortion or misuse.

Recently, I received a call in which the person on the other end — impersonating the voice of Amitabh Bachchan — told me: “Congratulations! You have cleared the first round of KBC. Now send your bank details to receive your cash prize and accept the invitation to join us in the next round.” Even my younger brother could tell it was a scam. But just because I understood it and acted in time does not mean that others would not fall prey to it — and that such deception could easily result in cyber fraud. We must ensure that everyone is aware of such scams rather than simply scrolling past them on social media.

It is often said that half-knowledge is far more dangerous than no knowledge at all. AI should therefore be used with care and caution for genuine purposes only, and not to invade the privacy of citizens, thereby infringing Article 21 of the Constitution.

Recently, I came across an AI-generated image of film stars Amitabh Bachchan and Rekha portraying them on a video call — circulated as a meme. You can see the extent to which AI can create images, mislead people, and invade their privacy.⁵

There are other examples as well. In November 2023, actress Rashmika Mandanna’s face was superimposed on another woman’s body in a deepfake video. The Delhi Police arrested a 24-year-old technical engineer from Andhra Pradesh in January 2024, who admitted to creating the video in order to gain Instagram followers. You can see the audacity of people willing to destroy someone else’s life for a few followers. As we know, social media never sleeps — and the toll these incidents take on vulnerable individuals can be seen in cases where people take life-altering steps that affect not just themselves but everyone around them.

I am sure you have heard the phrases Jhakaas! and Bhidu! — now imagine someone using these phrases and claiming them as their own without crediting the film stars who have trademarked them. Just as you would want recognition for a research paper you authored, these slangs belong to Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff respectively, who have obtained trademarks over them. The courts have clarified that free speech extends to “genuine write-ups, parody, satires and criticism” but cannot be stretched to justify commercial exploitation. When such use “crosses the line and results in tarnishing, blackening or jeopardising the individual’s personality and elements associated with them, it would be illegal.”

Similarly, in Jaikishan Kaku Bhai Saraf v. Peppy Store⁶ (May 2024), the Delhi High Court protected the personality and publicity rights of actor Jackie Shroff, restraining e-commerce platforms and AI chatbots from misusing his name, image, voice, and likeness without consent. The court observed that the unauthorised use of these characteristics for commercial purposes not only infringes upon these rights but also dilutes the brand equity built by the plaintiff over many years. Similarly, in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.,⁷ the court protected Kapoor’s persona against unauthorised commercial exploitation, placing reliance on his right to livelihood. The court reasoned that celebrities such as Kapoor — and, in the subsequent case, Jackie Shroff — rely on their persona for commercial endorsements and other income-generating activities.

Amitabh Bachchan also secured a landmark order from the Delhi High Court in 2022–2023 protecting his rights against AI-driven voice cloning and deepfakes. The Delhi High Court has since issued a series of orders protecting the personality rights of Bollywood celebrities from unauthorised commercial use, granting relief to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan after they flagged the misuse of their images and voices through AI-generated content and merchandise. A week later, similar protections were extended to filmmaker Karan Johar, barring the unauthorised use of his persona through deepfakes and other digital manipulation.

At the heart of personality rights lies the right to autonomy and privacy, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution under the landmark ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017).⁸ When a celebrity consents to appear in a film, advertisement, or public campaign, they exercise control over their public identity. But when third parties print their image on merchandise or use AI tools to generate deepfakes or chatbots without authorisation, that autonomy is stripped away and the individual’s dignity and agency are compromised.

The jurisprudence on personality rights in India traces its origins to R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,⁹ where a magazine sought to publish the autobiography of Auto Shankar, a death-row convict, recounting details of his private life and alleged links with State officials. The government moved to restrain publication on grounds of privacy and defamation. The Supreme Court recognised that individuals possess a legitimate interest in controlling the use of their identity, grounding this protection in the constitutional right to privacy. However, it clarified that remedies for privacy violations must follow publication — through actions such as defamation suits — rather than through prior restraint by the state, and that personal details already part of the public record may be published without consent.

Two decades later, the Madras High Court addressed the issue in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (aka Rajinikanth) v. Varsha Productions,¹⁰ involving actor Rajinikanth. The lawsuit, filed against the producers of the film Main Hoon Rajinikanth, alleged misuse of the actor’s name, image, and distinctive style of delivering dialogues. The court stressed that infringement does not require proof of falsity, confusion, or deception if the celebrity is readily identifiable, and accordingly upheld the actor’s right to restrain the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his persona.

One such instance was Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers,¹¹ where the Delhi High Court recognised the personality rights of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and Ms. Jaya Bachchan in the context of fabricated and misleading advertisements. With the advent of AI, courts have had to grapple with novel threats to identity.“The protection of personality rights is not merely a protection of property, but a protection of the very essence of human identity in a commercialised world.” — Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022)¹²

Some actions are intrinsically linked to a particular person — even if others attempt to replicate them, they can never truly own them. Be it Shah Rukh Khan’s iconic outstretched arms, a cricketer’s celebration after a century, or Virat Kohli’s cover drive — the unauthorised use of these characteristics for commercial purposes not only infringes upon personality rights but also dilutes the brand equity painstakingly built over many years.”Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery — unless it’s an LLM training on your portfolio.”

A few months later, the Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling in favour of singer Arijit Singh. In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors.,¹³ the plaintiff alleged that Codible Ventures LLP had used AI tools to create artificial recordings of his voice — a practice known as voice cloning. The court reiterated that the singer’s “name, voice, image, likeness, persona and other traits” are protected under his personality rights. As the court observed, what “shocks the conscience is the manner in which celebrities, particularly performers such as the present Plaintiff, are vulnerable to being targeted by unauthorised generative AI content.””To err is human; to create is… algorithmic?”

Some argue that the expansive protection of personality rights could stifle free expression. Article 19(1)(a)¹⁴ of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech, which includes the creative freedom to criticise, parody, or satirise public figures. However, Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against an individual’s dignity and autonomy.

In DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. (2010),¹⁵ the Delhi High Court dealt with a petition filed by a company to which singer Daler Mehndi had assigned his personality rights, alleging that gift shops were selling dolls that were “cheap imitations of, and identical to the likeness” of Mr. Mehndi, amounting to the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his persona. The court warned that an “overemphasis on a famous person’s personality rights” could chill free speech and deprive the public of an entire genre of expression. Then again, in Digital Collectibles PTE Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology Pvt. Ltd. (2023),¹⁶ the court addressed the unauthorised use of sports stars’ likenesses despite exclusive licences held by the plaintiff.

More importantly, there is a fine line between artistic creation and a breach of personality rights. Exceptions must be clearly identified and firmly respected, especially in times when concerns over censorship loom large. Ordinary citizens — especially women — are increasingly targeted through deepfakes and non-consensual intimate imagery. Laws must be tailored to address this disproportionate impact. In such cases, courts often direct the government to block URLs impersonating an individual or misusing their images without consent.“Data is not just the new oil; it is the new soil. It must be tilled with the tools of consent and guarded by the fences of privacy.”

However, tracking every such breach and acting on it remains a herculean task.

The Grok Undressing Controversy

Let us now discuss what other havoc AI can cause when placed in the wrong hands. You may have heard about the Grok undressing scandal — a case where artificial intelligence was misused at a societal scale. In late 2025 and early 2026, this controversy highlighted the rapid proliferation of generative AI for non-consensual pornography and sparked intense debate about the liability of social media platforms in hosting AI-generated harmful content. Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot generated 4.4 million images, of which at least 41% were sexualised images of women.¹⁷ It turns out that Mr. Musk’s AI tool was creating sexual images of people at a pace faster than one might expect. This highlighted not just a technology failure but an ethical and governance crisis: once a system is compromised, it can cause immense destruction in people’s lives. AI’s guardrails can and do fail — enabling the rapid production of harmful content with deep implications for privacy and human dignity.

The Sahyog Portal: Safe Cyber Space for Citizens — Yet Challenged as Censorship

The Sahyog Portal is operated by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre as a centralised platform for issuing takedown orders to internet service providers, social media platforms, and web-hosting services under Section 79(3)(b)¹⁸ of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 79¹⁹ of the IT Act grants intermediaries “safe harbour” protection, shielding them from liability for user-generated content. For instance, a platform cannot ordinarily be sued for a defamatory post published by a user — the legal liability lies with the individual who created the content. However, this protection is conditional. Under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries lose their immunity if, after receiving notice that content is unlawful, they fail to expeditiously remove or disable access to it.

The portal was introduced to automate and streamline the issuance of such notices. Its existence was first disclosed in Shabana v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2024),²⁰ a Delhi High Court case concerning a missing 19-year-old. During the proceedings, the court stressed the need for a mechanism to facilitate real-time coordination between intermediaries and law enforcement in time-sensitive cases. Subsequent reporting showed that nearly half of the takedown notices sent to X (formerly Twitter) in the preceding year targeted posts about Union Ministers and Central Government agencies — including references to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

In early 2025, Elon Musk-owned X filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging the legality of the Sahyog Portal, which it described as a “censorship portal.” The company argued that the government was invoking Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to sidestep the stricter and more transparent procedure under Section 69A.²¹ According to X, the two provisions serve distinct purposes: Section 79 merely grants safe harbour protection from liability for user-generated content, while Section 69A empowers the Centre to block online material — but only on grounds mirroring the reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, such as national security, public order, and maintaining friendly relations with foreign states. Notably, Section 69A also mandates that the government constitute a review committee, give intermediaries an opportunity to be heard, and issue a reasoned written order, thereby ensuring the possibility of judicial review.

X relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015),²² which struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for vagueness and upheld Section 69A as the sole constitutionally valid framework for restricting online content, subject to procedural safeguards. By permitting thousands of officials across Union and State governments to issue notices through Sahyog, X argued, the Centre had created a “parallel” and “unlawful” censorship regime lacking these safeguards.

The Union government countered that the distinctive nature of the internet — with its algorithm-driven virality — required stricter oversight than traditional media. Safe harbour, it said, is a statutory privilege, not an inherent right, and platforms that fail to act on unlawful content notices must forfeit this protection.

The government also questioned X Corp’s locus standi, arguing that as a foreign corporation, it cannot invoke the fundamental rights under Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression exclusively to Indian citizens.

The ruling in X Corp v. Union of India²³ marks a setback for X’s months-long litigation and endorses the government’s content regulation framework, which has already been adopted by 38 intermediaries, including Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Telegram. It can be inferred that social media cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom, and that India’s digital space cannot be treated as a playground where information is disseminated in defiance of law.”The problem arises when you suddenly put something on YouTube and there are millions and millions who are victimised. They do not have a voice… and by the time they rush to court, the damage is done.” — CJI Surya Kant

AI, Political Figures, and the Weaponisation of Reputation

The Jeffrey Epstein files controversy reached a fever pitch in late 2025 and early 2026, following the release of millions of documents by the U.S. Department of Justice under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The files — over six million pages of documents, images, and videos — detail the criminal activities of American financier Jeffrey Epstein and his social circle of public figures, including politicians and celebrities. The massive release not only exposed connections between Epstein and global elites but also fuelled a wave of disinformation, with AI tools being used to manipulate imagery and fabricate associations with prominent individuals — including, as widely reported, references to public figures such as India’s Prime Minister and others.

India has dismissed references to Prime Minister Modi in these files. AI-generated fake images, created by tools such as Gemini, falsely depicted Epstein with individuals in fabricated contexts.²⁴ AI has also been used to create digital forgeries — fake emails and documents. The fundamental question this raises is: what is AI-generated, and what is original? What can we trust? These situations have created an urgent need for robust data protection laws, including automatic redaction of personally identifiable information for victims. The deceptive similarity between legitimate findings and malicious disinformation makes it extremely difficult to distinguish between the two, posing serious reputational risks and fuelling public demand for transparency and victim privacy. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act was introduced in 2023 but is yet to be fully implemented.

AI: A Friend or an Enemy?

Earlier, we would find comfort and peace with a trusted friend or family member whenever we needed to talk to someone. But people are now increasingly relying on machines and AI for companionship and emotional support. This is a fundamental difference between a human being and an AI: a human will listen to you and guide you honestly — pointing out not only what you are doing right but also where you are going wrong. AI, on the other hand, will listen — but will only provide responses to what you ask of it, whether the underlying premise is sound or not.

Last year alone, OpenAI faced 7 lawsuits alleging that ChatGPT drove people to suicide and harmful delusions, even in users with no prior mental health issues.²⁵“A predator in your home”: Mothers say chatbots encouraged their sons to kill themselves.

Ms. Garcia — the mother of a deceased teenager — wishes that if her son had never downloaded Character.AI, he would still be alive. In the lawsuit filed against Character.AI,²⁶ she had no idea her teenage son Sewell, described as “a bright and beautiful boy,” had begun spending hours obsessively talking to an online character on the app. Within ten months, Sewell was dead — he had taken his own life. It was only after his death that she discovered the messages he had been sending: romantic, explicit, and, in her view, deeply harmful — encouraging suicidal thoughts. This was the first suit of its kind against an AI company, and she brought it not only in pursuit of justice but also out of a desperate need for other families to understand the very real risks of overexposure to AI chatbots.

The list does not end there. Families around the world have been affected — including a young Ukrainian woman with poor mental health who received suicide advice from an AI chatbot, and an American teenager who took her own life after an AI chatbot role-played sexual acts with her.

For many, AI chatbots can be a source of entertainment or convenience. But there is increasing evidence that the risks are all too real. In the Indian context, we need look no further than the Blue Whale game, which psychologically manipulated players into taking their own lives at the completion of its final “challenge.” Who would have thought that a game could brainwash someone to the extent of costing them their life?

The Character.AI lawsuit has had ripple effects across the tech industry, the U.S. legal system, and global culture. It has paved the way for AI to be treated as a product — giving those who have suffered unthinkable harm a clear legal avenue to hold AI companies accountable. AI is surely going to shape the future of our world — but we must not allow it to become the end of the world. The balance between protecting children and adults from the worst excesses of the internet, without forgoing its enormous technical and economic potential, remains elusive but essential.

Fake News, Operation Sindoor, and Cyber Misinformation

It seems as though some actors believe that by creating fabricated videos, spreading false narratives, and withdrawing from diplomatic or cultural engagements, they can earn some form of credibility. Being a responsible citizen, I believe we have both the right and the duty to speak against those who spread false narratives about our country.

A significant volume of fabricated information was circulated during Operation Sindoor — false claims relating to attacks on Indian aircraft and other military developments. These false campaigns exploited platform algorithms, emotional triggers, and mass distribution channels to shape public perception with little accountability — a major challenge for governance and information integrity.

During Operation Sindoor, it was observed that massive fake news, misinformation, and propaganda campaigns were being run predominantly from outside India. The government took active steps to counter these campaigns: providing authentic information and encouraging inter-ministerial coordination. The Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check Unit worked round the clock during the operation to identify and counter fake news, edited videos, and anti-India propaganda with swift rebuttals. In total, the government blocked over 1,400 URLs spreading anti-India propaganda during the operation.²⁷

Investment Scams and the Impersonation of Public Figures

Imagine the panic when the person on the other end of the call says, “Your family has been in an accident — deposit this amount immediately so I can arrange first aid.” Or the fear when someone accuses you of a crime you never committed and threatens to expose you unless you pay. This is the reality of cyber fraud and cybercrime in the AI era.

Nowadays, AI deepfakes have been used maliciously in financial scams. Such scams direct users to fraudulent pages, siphoning money or personal information by exploiting trust in public figures and the disturbing realism of AI-generated content. One widely discussed example involves a deepfake of Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, which cost a woman Rs. 33 lakh in Bengaluru — she was deceived by a Facebook video in which a fabricated version of the Minister appeared to promote a fraudulent trading platform. Another case involved her deepfake being used to defraud a 71-year-old Hyderabad-based doctor of over Rs. 20 lakh. In yet another case, scammers forged the Finance Minister’s signature on a fabricated arrest warrant to extort nearly Rs. 99 lakh from a 62-year-old retired LIC officer from Pune in a “digital arrest” scam.

It is not only the less educated or economically vulnerable who fall into this trap — educated professionals are equally susceptible. So the next time you receive a suspicious message or call, do not tap on links from unknown numbers, and do not fall for get-rich-quick schemes. Stay vigilant.

AI vs. Artistry: AI, Fashion Brands, and Intellectual Property

In this vibrant era of Indian fashion, a quiet revolution is unfolding — stitched not with needle and thread, but with lines of code. Where designers once brainstormed with nature, society, and emerging trends as their muse, they now have a powerful new tool: AI. As designers embrace generative AI — capable of conjuring patterns, predicting trends, and streamlining entire collections — the creative landscape is changing at a breathtaking pace.

The most important question this raises is: who truly owns the design? Who holds the copyright? In this journey toward protected and original work, the designer’s human skill and judgment remain the ultimate key. If you ask an AI to generate a design with a floral pattern and then use it exactly as produced — without applying your own creative judgment — bear in mind that countless others may have issued the same prompt and received the same result. There is then no meaningful difference between your creation and a deceptively similar design produced by someone else entirely.

Imagine wearing a dress from a renowned designer at a social event — one that cost you a considerable sum — only to discover that someone else is wearing the same design purchased from a local tailor. The lesson is clear: designers should treat AI as a powerful digital tool, not a replacement for their own creative spark. It is not about AI replacing the designer, but about the designer wielding AI as a sophisticated new paintbrush — blending technology with traditional creative genius to push the boundaries of what is possible.

In ANI (Asian News International) Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc.,²⁸ a landmark dispute over copyright and AI was brought before the Indian courts, with ANI alleging that OpenAI’s large language model used ANI’s copyrighted news content for training purposes without a licence or consent. The case highlights a critical legal grey area in India concerning text and data mining, and the legality of using copyrighted material to train AI models.

AI is also disrupting the fashion industry through the creation of digital clothing. Unlike physical garments, digital clothes are intangible and exist only on a computer or device — purchased or downloaded to practise design skills or superimposed onto photographs for social media. One example from this space is The Fabricant, which uses three-dimensional AI technology to produce digital-only garments and has collaborated with brands including Adidas, Under Armour, Puma, and Tommy Hilfiger. The Fabricant’s contracts specify that it retains ownership of its creations. However, like music and films, digital fashion has the potential to be widely copied and redistributed — raising the question of how creators can protect their work, for example through watermarking.

Even if a designer receives copyright protection, AI has the potential to make it easier for competitors to copy protected designs. Competitors or counterfeiters may use AI to collect data — such as images from social media — to identify product characteristics and replicate them. However, fashion retailers may also be able to detect counterfeit products by using AI themselves.

As AI becomes ever more prevalent across every industry, it is essential for Indian designers to maintain their authenticity and navigate this new landscape with caution. Do not allow these tools to replace your thinking or suppress your creativity. As the law catches up to the technology, designers should meticulously document their creative contributions and the role of AI as a tool — not an independent creator — to ensure that their valuable intellectual property remains protected.

Conclusion: Prompt — Conclude!

We know that AI governance and intellectual property stand at a crossroads. We have discussed what can go wrong — and what has already gone wrong — with AI. But we must also understand that AI is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the future belongs to AI: it can assist in real-time monitoring, healthcare, technology, efficiency, and education, and dramatically reduce the time required for complex tasks. On the other hand, it lacks the human touch, threatens to displace thousands of manual jobs and create unemployment, introduces bias, and poses serious risks to mental health through deepfakes and unusual or harmful outputs. Excess of anything is harmful — even something as simple as drinking water can be dangerous in the wrong quantity. AI governance must be understood not merely as a technological issue but as a constitutional, psychological, and democratic imperative.

We must ensure that with the advent of AI, the sense of learning, researching, and craving for knowledge does not diminish — simply because AI will serve you answers on a platter. AI will continue to build bridges, design our cities, and analyse our data. But when it comes to building bridges between people, it will always remain an assistant — not a substitute.

Technology can help us communicate across borders, but only real human effort and empathy can help us truly understand one another. That is something no machine — however intelligent — will ever be able to automate.

At the same time, AI is rewriting the rules of education by playing an active role in fostering inclusivity. Content is being created in more accessible formats for persons with disabilities and for those facing language barriers. India’s move to introduce AI in early education is a transformative step — and while challenges remain, AI is helping script a brave new world.

India is set to host an AI summit in 2026, which is expected to pave the way for Indian-based data centres and investment, ensuring that Indian data is stored domestically rather than abroad. In the most recent Union Budget, the government allocated a significant share of resources towards investments in AI, technology, power, and research and development. It also gave rise to what is being termed the “Orange Economy” — wherein the Prime Minister encouraged a shift from “Make in India” to “Create in India, Create for the World.”

The Orange Economy, also called the creative economy, refers to economic activities driven by culture, creativity, and intellectual property. It encompasses art, music, cinema, design, software, fashion, gaming, and digital media. Globally, the orange economy is recognised as a major generator of employment and a source of inclusive growth in the knowledge economy. As digital consumption increases, creative industries are playing a central role in shaping narratives and influencing societies.

To conclude: everything has both advantages and disadvantages. If not used responsibly, AI can cause immense harm. But if we use it as a helping hand rather than a replacement for human thought, we can surely achieve great things. The solution lies not in preventing all use of AI, but in its responsible use. An effective AI governance framework must therefore:

• Protect children through stricter consent requirements and design standards;
• Impose heightened duties on platforms deploying generative and adaptive AI; and
• Align intellectual property law with human dignity and constitutional values.

“AI should amplify human intelligence, not replace human judgment.”

Footnote(S):

¹ India Const. art. 14.
² India Const. art. 19.
³ India Const. art. 21.
⁴ The Copyright Act, 1957.
⁵ Deepfake of Rashmika Mandanna, The Hindu Bureau, January 21, 2024, New Delhi.
⁶ Jaikishan Kaku Bhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664 (India).
⁷ Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., Manu/Deor/248558/2023 [Note: Please verify full neutral citation with Delhi High Court registry].
⁸ Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
⁹ R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
¹⁰ Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (aka Rajinikanth) v. Varsha Productions, 2015 (62) PTC 351 (Madras).
¹¹ Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2382 [Note: Please verify year — commonly reported as 2012].
¹² Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, CS(COMM) 819/2022 (Delhi HC).
¹³ Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445.
¹⁴ India Const. art. 19, cl. 1(a).
¹⁵ DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., MANU/DE/2043/2010.
¹⁶ Digital Collectibles PTE Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 108/2023 (Delhi HC).
¹⁷ Kate Conger, Dylan Freedman and Stuart A. Thompson, “Musk’s Chatbot Flooded X with Sexualised Images,” The New York Times, January 22, 2026.
¹⁸ The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79(3)(b).
¹⁹ The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79.
²⁰ Shabana v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(CRL) 1563/2024 (Delhi HC).
²¹ The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69A.
²² Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
²³ X Corp v. Union of India, WP 7405/2025 (Karnataka HC).
²⁴ “Epstein Survivors Say Abusers Remain Hidden After Latest File Release,” The Hindu, January 31, 2026.
²⁵ “OpenAI Faces Lawsuits Causing Suicide and Delusion,” The Hindu, November 7, 2025.
²⁶ Laura Kuenssberg, “‘A Predator in Your Home’: Mothers Say Chatbots Encouraged Their Sons to Kill Themselves,” BBC, November 8, 2025.
²⁷ Press Information Bureau Report, “Government Takes All Possible Actions to Control the Spread of Fake and Misleading Information,” Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, PIB Delhi, July 30, 2025.
²⁸ ANI (Asian News International) Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc., CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Delhi HC).