Vikas Vijay Nair v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Gujarat High Court PIL on AI-generated deepfake content)

Vikas Vijay Nair's petition belongs to a wave of 2026 litigation in which High Courts were asked to deal with AI-generated content through the existing IT Act framework instead of waiting for new legislation. It is a public interest petition in the Gujarat High Court, registered as R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 9 of 2026, and was heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray.¹²

The petition says the IT Act, 2000 and the intermediary rules already contain a detailed framework, but that practical gaps in enforcement remain. It invokes Section 69 of the IT Act, which governs interception, monitoring and decryption directions, and argues that procedural rules under that provision are needed for deepfakes. It identifies three gaps: real-time support for police and specialised cyber units facing fast-spreading deepfakes; coordination between State police, MeitY's blocking and Sahyog or takedown portals, and platform-level enforcement; and prioritisation and escalation protocols when deepfakes target constitutional authorities and threaten public order. It also refers to intermediary due-diligence duties under Section 79 and the IT Rules amendment on AI-generated content, and says enforcement still falls short.²

The regulatory background had changed shortly before. A LiveLaw commentary describes the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 (G.S.R. 120(E)), effective 10 February 2026, as defining deepfakes, cutting takedown timelines for authorised notices from 36 hours to 3 hours, and requiring technical markers on AI-generated content.⁹

Notice to the State, Centre and police (March 2026). Bar & Bench reported on 3 March 2026 that the court had issued notice to the State and Central governments and asked the Director General of Police to place a response on record. LiveLaw reported on 6 March that the court noted the plea's description of a "sharp and alarming rise" in fake and AI-generated videos and photographs, grouped into deepfake impersonations, obscene and vulgar portrayals, and mocking and dehumanising depictions. The next date was 20 March 2026.¹²

Affidavits and notice to platforms (10 April 2026). The State's affidavit argued that intermediaries lose the protection of Section 79(3)(b) if they do not remove flagged content, and that police face delays, repeated procedural demands and non-compliance, with some platforms ignoring even show-cause notices. The Union's affidavit, filed through the Ministry of Home Affairs, described the SAHYOG portal, run by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and operational since October 2024. It said 524 intermediaries, including Meta and Google, had onboarded, but X had not, and that X often failed to respond. The Centre gave figures for X: 94 intimations covering 1,160 URLs over 2024 to 2026, with formal responses to only 13. The Centre cited the Karnataka High Court's 2025 judgment in X Corp v. Union of India as judicial recognition of SAHYOG.³ The State proposed a regulatory policy providing for immediate coordination between investigating authorities and digital service providers, stressing the aim was to stop platform misuse and not to restrict lawful expression.³

The court issued notice to Meta, Google, X, Reddit and Scribd and asked them to respond to the petitioner's, the State's and the Centre's positions on implementing the legal framework. As an interim direction it asked intermediaries to onboard SAHYOG, to act swiftly on Section 79(3)(b) notices and to meet time-bound takedown obligations. It also sought a response from MeitY and said effective responses from intermediaries "will be key" to the due-diligence obligations placed on them. Bar & Bench reported the court as observing that "weak implementation of current laws" was the problem.³⁴ The case was listed for 8 May 2026.³

X's application (14 August 2026). X filed an application (CA/1/2026) to modify the direction to the extent it required intermediaries to onboard SAHYOG, saying the issue concerned Section 79(3)(b) and the portal and that its reply was in transit from the United States. X's counsel flagged overlapping litigation: the Union's transfer petition in the Supreme Court and an X appeal in a Karnataka High Court Division Bench. Arvind Datar, for Meta, said a response would be filed within two weeks, Google LLC's substitution for Google was allowed, and Meta, Google LLC, X, Reddit and Scribd were directed to file responses by the next hearing on 11 September.⁵

Before the next Gujarat hearing the Union filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2597/2026 asking the Supreme Court to transfer the PIL to itself. On 8 September 2026 a bench of the Chief Justice, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union, issued notice returnable on 5 October 2026 and stayed further proceedings in the Gujarat PIL in the meantime.⁶

According to LiveLaw, the Union's counsel told the Court that similar proceedings before other High Courts had been interdicted and were pending before it, and set out the SAHYOG data and the position on X.⁷ Bar & Bench reported the same submission.⁸ The Supreme Court had on 22 July 2026 stayed four High Court proceedings in Karnataka and Bombay that challenge SAHYOG and the related IT Rules provision; see the linked entries.¹⁰ The stay in the Gujarat case freezes the interim direction to onboard along with the rest of the case.

The petition does not ask the court to strike down any provision. It asks for better enforcement of an existing legal framework against AI-generated content, and it brings together three questions that run through Indian deepfake litigation.

First, how far can the executive's notice-and-takedown route under Section 79(3)(b) be used against synthetic content, and what happens to safe harbour when a platform does not comply? The State's argument that non-compliance forfeits protection is the reading of Section 79(3)(b) that X Corp contested in the Karnataka High Court (see the linked entry), and it sits against Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which limited the takedown duty to court or government orders.

Second, can a court require private platforms to join a government portal by interim direction? X's application suggests that this is contested, and its pending Karnataka appeal raises the same underlying issues.

Third, what is the role of High Courts in setting deepfake procedure when the Delhi High Court has been supervising MeitY's Committee on Deepfakes since November 2024 and the Union has amended the IT Rules in 2026? The Union's decision to seek transfer indicates that it prefers a single forum.

The case matters because it is a High Court proceeding in which a court asked major platforms to engage with the SAHYOG portal in the context of AI-generated content, although the direction has not been tested on the merits and is now stayed.

As of 15 October 2026 the Gujarat High Court PIL is stayed under the Supreme Court's order of 8 September 2026 in T.P.(C) 2597/2026. That petition was returnable on 5 October 2026, and the outcome of that date could not be located. Whether the interim direction of 10 April 2026 to onboard SAHYOG remains operative while the stay lasts, and whether the Gujarat High Court will resume the case, depends on the Supreme Court's decision on transfer. See the entry on the Supreme Court's proceedings on AI and deepfakes for the wider picture.⁶⁷