The Court claimed that the court was becoming a grievance redressal forum due to the frequent requests for content removal.
The Delhi High Court stated on Friday that intermediaries should ideally take action when someone reports that their deepfake is being created and shared on social media sites [Rajat Sharma & Anr v Tamara doc & Ors].
According to Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, the statutory procedure should be effective and people shouldn't be compelled to appear in court for matters like these.
The Court questioned, "Where is the question of investigation once a party, whose deepfake is being made, says it is a deepfake?"
According to Justice Arora, the Court has become a grievance redressal venue as a result of these recurring incidents.
"These kinds of matters shouldn't force people to appear in court unless they are contentious. Why have I been appointed as the social media platform's grievance redressal officer? The Court inquired.
When the grievance redressal officer could resolve the matter in two pages, Justice Arora claimed that she was required to write "pass 30-page orders."
These kinds of matters shouldn't force people to appear in court unless they are disputed.
Delhi High Court
The Bench's comments came after journalist Rajat Sharma submitted an application to have deepfake footage removed from YouTube in his ongoing personality rights lawsuit.
Sharma requested that the Court add YouTube as a party to the lawsuit and issue orders for the removal of multiple YouTube channels that produce and distribute his deepfakes, offer investment advice, and spread news.
Following consideration of the issue, the High Court ordered the removal of the content that Sharma had highlighted and made YouTue a party.
The Court stated that if more of Sharma's deepfakes appear in the future, he can contact YouTube, and the social media site must take action to remove them within 48 hours.
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
