The Gujarat High Court has ordered investigations into major digital platforms, advocating for stronger oversight of AI-generated deepfakes amid rising concerns over misinformation targeting authorities in India.
The Gujarat High Court has widened scrutiny of the risks posed by AI-generated deepfakes, issuing notices to Meta India, Google, X, Reddit and Scribd after a public interest petition warned that manipulated videos and images are spreading faster than the law can respond. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, has asked the governments and several digital intermediaries to explain their position as it considers whether India needs a tougher regulatory response to synthetic media.
According to the petition filed by advocate Vikas Vijay Nair, the rise of convincingly altered audio-visual material has made it easier to target constitutional and statutory authorities with fabricated content that can be hard for the public to distinguish from authentic material. The plea says existing legal tools, including the Information Technology Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, are not enough on their own to deal with the pace and scale of AI-enabled impersonation and misinformation.
The court’s latest order also reflects growing official concern about compliance failures by some platforms. The Centre told the bench that it created the Sahyog portal in October 2024 to allow law-enforcement agencies and intermediaries to coordinate the rapid removal of unlawful content, while also preserving evidence such as subscriber details and logs. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs said some platforms, including Meta and Google, have improved their response times, but others have not fully integrated with the system.
In that filing, the ministry singled out X, saying it had received 94 intimations between 2024 and 2026 about unlawful material but had formally replied to only 13. It said 788 notified URLs were disabled in 2024, followed by 70 in 2025 and six in 2026, but argued that the limited number of formal responses still hampered meaningful cooperation and delayed investigations. The Gujarat government made a similar complaint, saying lawful notices often lead to repeated procedural back-and-forth and no substantive removal of offending content.
The High Court had first sought responses from the Centre, the Gujarat government and the state police chief on February 24, and the question of notices to the platforms was taken up later as the case developed. The matter is now set to return on May 8, with the court signalling that it expects intermediaries to be onboarded on Sahyog and to act more quickly when unlawful AI-generated material is flagged.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article reports on a recent development from April 15, 2026, concerning the Gujarat High Court's actions against AI-generated deepfakes. Similar reports from February 2026 indicate prior attention to this issue, suggesting ongoing concern. ([ndtv.com](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/after-petition-flags-ai-misuse-high-court-issues-notices-to-centre-11129691/amp/1?utm_source=openai)) The presence of multiple sources reporting on the same event within a short timeframe indicates freshness. However, the article's reliance on a single source raises questions about originality. The source, LawChakra, is a legal news platform that aggregates content from various outlets, which may affect the independence of the information. Additionally, the article includes a source reference map, indicating that the content is derived from multiple sources. The earliest known publication date of substantially similar content is February 24, 2026, which is more than 7 days prior to this article, suggesting that the narrative has been in circulation for some time.
Quotes check
Score:
6
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes attributed to the Gujarat High Court and other officials. However, these quotes cannot be independently verified through the provided sources. The LawChakra article does not link directly to the original court orders or official statements, making it difficult to confirm the authenticity of the quotes. Without access to the original documents or statements, the accuracy of these quotes remains uncertain.
Source reliability
Score:
5
Notes:
The primary source, LawChakra, is a legal news platform that aggregates content from various outlets. While it provides a compilation of information, it does not offer original reporting or direct access to primary sources. This reliance on aggregated content may affect the reliability and independence of the information presented. The article also references other sources, such as The Economic Times and NDTV, which are reputable news organizations. However, the lack of direct links to these sources in the article raises concerns about transparency and the ability to verify the information independently.
Plausibility check
Score:
7
Notes:
The claims about the Gujarat High Court issuing notices to major tech companies over AI-generated deepfakes are plausible and align with ongoing global concerns about the misuse of AI in creating synthetic media. Similar actions have been reported in other jurisdictions, indicating a consistent pattern of legal responses to this issue. However, the lack of direct access to the original court orders and official statements makes it challenging to fully assess the accuracy and context of the claims.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article reports on the Gujarat High Court's actions against AI-generated deepfakes, citing a recent development from April 15, 2026. However, the reliance on aggregated content from LawChakra, which does not provide direct links to primary sources or official statements, raises concerns about the originality and independence of the information. The inability to independently verify the quotes and the lack of direct access to the original court orders further diminish the reliability of the content. Given these issues, the article does not meet the necessary standards for independent verification and source reliability.
