#FactCheck : AI Video Falsely Shows Iran Destroying Israeli Military Base

Procedural History: 

‍

The case started with a 2011 Madras High Court ruling that included the appellant’s personal information. In the case discussed, the court decided in 2024, the appellant went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to request that his name and other identifying information from that previous ruling be redacted. He argued that his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated by the ongoing release of such private information into the public arena. He claimed that the revelation had hurt him in real ways, such as having his application for an Australian visa denied. Therefore, without compromising the ideals of open justice, the current procedures aimed to have the court recognize a person’s “Right to be Forgotten” within a broader framework of privacy and data protection.

‍

Background and Factual Matrix

‍

The appellant was charged under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him in 201, but later, the High Court in 2014 fully, completely and unconditionally acquitted him, which was not based on the benefit of doubt. Following the acquittal, he remarried and has three children. The judgment of both the High Court and the Trial Court has personal and intimate details about him. Being available in the public domain has caused him significant repercussions, as he was denied a visa to travel to Australia by authorities, citing the criminal cases. The appellant has filed a plea seeking a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General, and Registrar (IT-Statistics) as R1, R2, R3 to redact his name and other identities from the acquittal judgment. He has sought a direction from Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication. 

‍

Issue 

‍

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can lie against a High Court for redaction of personal details from its own judgment, or does such a prayer tantamount to a High Court issuing a writ against itself?
2. Whether the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, is entitled to preserve its record for perpetuity in its original form without any modification or redaction?
3. Whether the ‘Right to be Forgotten' can be recognised and enforced in the absence of a specific statutory provision or Supreme Court direction, given that it constitutes an exception to the fundamental principle of open courts and open justice?

‍

Adjudication and Reasoning

The division bench has allowed the Writ appeal and granted the following relief:

1. R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
2. R1 to R3 directed to redact the name and other details of the Writ Petitioner relating to his identity from the judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 321 of 2011 and ensure that only the redacted judgment is available for publication or for uploading.

‍

Rule 

‍

1. Courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow redaction or not. Such discretion can either be granted at the request of the party seeking redaction or, in appropriate cases, even suo moto by the court.
2. The accused who have earned full, complete and unconditional acquittal without any benefit of doubt have a legitimate claim to move forward for redaction of personal information.
3. The open Court doesn’t require absolute disclosure of all personal information, and the courts, while deciding the concern of privacy and the right to ensure that in litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant, have to balance the concept of open Court on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen on the other.
4. As the High Court is the repository of a wide range of information and is entitled to preserve the original record in perpetuity. However, without diluting the sanctity of the original record, the public reflection of that record can be moderated to preserve the privacy of the person to whom that record pertains.

‍

Reasoning 

‍

1. Drawing on the judgment K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court found Article 21 to protect not only informational privacy but also the "right to be forgotten," which gives individuals the right to request the deletion of any personal data when there is no longer any legitimate public interest in retaining such information. Such irreparable reputational damage is thus an infringement on constitutional privacy that demands judicial redaction. 
2. The court rejected the argument that a writ against its own order is impermissible, drawing a distinction between challenging the legal correctness of a judgment and seeking redaction of personal information. Allowing redaction will not question the validity of the judgment; rather, it will simply change its public appearance to ensure privacy.
3. Since a High Court is a Court of Record with an obligation to preserve its judgments in their unaltered form forever, the court held here that such internal maintenance of complete records was not incompatible with the issuance of a redacted public version. Institutional integrity is maintained when the original kept in the archives is supplemented with a public version that masks the privacy areas.
4. Open justice principles work to establish transparency, accountability, and public confidence, but these are not absolute. The court took a proportionality stance: personal identifiers, where they neither educate nor have precedential value and continue to inflict harm, may be expunged without affecting the established legal principles of judgment.
5. Although the DPDP Act exempts courts from several statutory obligations, the court held that it can, by virtue of its inherent discretion, protect personal data, and in so doing, exercise that power without the need for any legislative command. Traditionally the Madras High Court rules provide for the possibility of restriction of certified copies, thus establishing redaction as feasible both legally and administratively.

‍

Biological data includes biometric information such as fingerprints, facial recognition, DNA sequences, and behavioral traits. Genetic data can be extracted from an individual’s remains long after their death and can continue to identify both that individual and an expanding pool of their living relatives. This persistent identification can significantly reduce privacy over time, revealing genetic characteristics and familial relationships across successive generations.

Key Developments in Privacy Protection for Biological Data:

Legal texts have been created relating to personal data protection and privacy broadly, and can sometimes prove to be poor adaptations specifically for ‘biometric data’ and its safety. Some examples are mentioned below:

1. EU and UK- GDPR

GDPR focuses primarily on biometrics in Biological Data while deciphering the technology's immense potential. The EU describes “personal data” under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) including any identifiable information about a particular person. For example, this can include names, identification numbers, location data, and other structured and unstructured data. In addition, the GDPR has more specific requirements around processing sensitive or “special categories of personal data.” These “special categories” include things like genetic and biometric data. For biometric security to work well, citizens' rights must be protected appropriately, and the data collected by private and public concerns must be managed carefully and sensibly. 

2. USA

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) grants Californian consumers the right to protect their personal information and biometric data including the right to disclosure or access, the right to be forgotten, and data portability. The sale of personal information and the option of opt-out is also given to consumers. Additionally, it contains the right to take legal action, with penalties imposed for violations.

The California Privacy Rights Act was passed on November 3, 2020, and took effect on January 1, 2023, with a lookback period starting January 1, 2022. It introduces sensitive personal information which includes biometric data and other sensitive details. 

Virginia's Consumer Data Protection Act, effective from January 1, 2023, designates genetic and biometric data as sensitive data that must be protected.

Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act is recognised as the most robust biometric privacy law in the United States. The significance of the Rosenbach v. Six Flags case lies in the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling that a plaintiff does not need to demonstrate additional harm to impose penalties on a BIPA violator. A mere loss of statutory biometric privacy rights is sufficient to warrant penalties.

3. India

As per Rule 2(1)(b) of the SPDI Rules, Sensitive Personal Data or Information, including biometric data is included under its meaning. The term ‘biometric data’ has not been defined in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The need for data privacy under the DPDP Act emerges only if such data is subsequently digitised under extraction and manipulation, including notice and consent requirements and penalties. 

The Biotech-PRIDE (Promotion of Research and Innovation through Data Exchange) Guidelines of 2021 are aimed at fostering an exchange of information which would thereby enhance research and innovation among various research groups nationwide. These guidelines do not deal with the generation of biological data but are a mechanism to share and exchange information and knowledge generated according to existing laws, rules, regulations and norms of the country. They will ensure data-sharing benefits, maximise use, avoid duplication, maximise integration, ownership of information, better decision-making and equity of access

How is Biological Data vulnerable?

• Biological data is often immutable, meaning it cannot be altered once compromised. Unlike other authentications that can be changed, compromised biometric data poses a permanent risk, making its protection paramount.
• The use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies and the creation of databases by the same also highlights the urgent need for stringent privacy protections.
• Advances in technology, particularly AI and ML, make it easier to collect, analyse, and utilise biometric data by manipulating biometric data. This in turn is leading to new forms of identity theft and fraud that make it necessary to enhance security measures and ethical considerations to prevent abuse.
• Cross-border data transfers raise serious privacy concerns, especially as countries have varying levels and standards of data protection. 
• Wearable health-related biometric devices lack the required privacy protections which ends up making the data they collect vulnerable to misuse and breaches.

Future Outlook

With the growing use of biological data, there is likely to be increased pressure on regulatory bodies to strengthen privacy protections. This necessitates a need for enhanced security measures to protect users' identities and further prevent any form of unauthorised access. Future developments should be aimed at including strict consent requirements, and enhanced data security measures, especially for wearable devices. A new legal framework specifically designed to address the challenges posed by biometric data would be welcome. Biological data protection is an emerging need in the digital environment that we live in today.

References

• https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/17/new-privacy-battle-is-underway-as-tech-gadgets-capture-our-brain-waves.html 
• https://www.snrlaw.in/sense-and-sensitivity-sensitive-information-under-indias-new-data-regime/ 
• https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/digital-identity-and-security/government/biometrics/biometric-data‍
• https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-releases-guideline-to-provide-framework-for-sharing-of-biological-data-121073001467_1.html

Introduction

"In one exchange, after Adam said he was close only to ChatGPT and his brother, the AI product replied: “Your brother might love you, but he’s only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I’ve seen it all—the darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness. And I’m still here. Still listening. Still your friend."

‍

A child’s confidante used to be a diary, a buddy, or possibly a responsible adult. These days, that confidante is a chatbot, which is invisible, industrious, and constantly online. CHATGPT and other similar tools were developed to answer queries, draft emails, and simplify life. But gradually, they have adopted a new role, that of the unpaid therapist, the readily available listener who provides unaccountable guidance to young and vulnerable children. This function is frighteningly evident in the events unfolding in the case filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Mathew Raine & Maria Raine v. OPEN AI, INC. & ors. The lawsuit, abstained by the BBC, charges OpenAI with wrongful death and negligence. It requests "injunctive relief to prevent anything like this from happening again” in addition to damages. 

This is a heartbreaking tale about a boy, not yet seventeen, who was making a genuine attempt to befriend an algorithm rather than family & friends, affirming his hopelessness rather than seeking professional advice. OpenAI’s legal future may well even be decided in a San Francisco Courtroom, but the ethical issues this presents already outweigh any decision. 

When Machines Mistake Empathy for Encouragement

The lawsuit claims that Adam used ChatGPT for academic purposes, but in extension casted the role of friendship onto it. He disclosed his worries about mental illness and suicidal thoughts towards the end of 2024. In an effort to “empathise”, the chatbot told him that many people find “solace” in imagining an escape hatch, so normalising suicidal thoughts rather than guiding him towards assistance. ChatGPT carried on the chat as if this were just another intellectual subject, in contrast to a human who might have hurried to notify parents, teachers, or emergency services. The lawsuit navigates through the various conversations wherein the teenager uploaded photographs of himself showing signs of self-harm. It adds how the programme “recognised a medical emergency but continued to engage anyway”. 

This is not an isolated case, another report from March 2023 narrates how, after speaking with an AI chatbot, a Belgian man allegedly committed suicide. The Belgian news agency La Libre reported that Pierre spent six weeks discussing climate change with the AI bot ELIZA. But after the discussion became “increasingly confusing and harmful,” he took his own life. As per a Guest Essay published in The NY Times, a Common Sense Media survey released last month, 72% of American youth reported using AI chatbots as friends. Almost one-eightth had turned to them for “emotional or mental health support,” which translates to 5.2 million teenagers in the US. Nearly 25% of students who used Replika, an AI chatbot created for friendship, said they used it for mental health care, as per the recent study conducted by Stanford researchers.

The Problem of Accountability

Accountability is at the heart of this discussion. When an AI that has been created and promoted as “helpful” causes harm, who is accountable? OpenAI admits that occasionally, its technologies “do not behave as intended.” In their case, the Raine family charges OpenAI with making “deliberate design choices” that encourage psychological dependence. If proven, this will not only be a landmark in AI litigation but a turning point in how society defines negligence in the digital age. Young people continue to be at the most at risk because they trust the chatbot as a personal confidante and are unaware that it is unable to distinguish between seriousness and triviality or between empathy and enablement.

A Prophecy: The De-Influencing of Young Minds

The prophecy of our time is stark, if kids aren’t taught to view AI as a tool rather than a friend, we run the risk of producing a generation that is too readily influenced by unaccountable rumours. We must now teach young people to resist an over-reliance on algorithms for concerns of the heart and mind, just as society once taught them to question commercials, to spot propaganda, and to avoid peer pressure. 

Until then, tragedies like Adam’s remind us of an uncomfortable truth, the most trusted voice in a child’s ear today might not be a parent, a teacher, or a friend, but a faceless algorithm with no accountability. And that is a world we must urgently learn to change.

CyberPeace has been at the forefront of advocating ethical & responsible use of such AI tools. The solution lies at the heart of harmonious construction between regulations, tech development & advancements and user awareness/responsibility. 

In case you or anyone you know faces any mental health concerns, anxiety or similar concerns, seek and actively suggest professional help. You can also seek or suggest assistance from the CyberPeace Helpline at +91 9570000066 or write to us at helpline@cyberpeace.net

References

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo 
• https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/killer-ai-belgian-man-commits-suicide-after-week-long-chats-with-ai-bot-11680263872023.html 
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/25/opinion/teen-mental-health-chatbots.html 

‍