This Article is written by Bhuwan Mamgai of Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
ABSTRACT
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the way news is created, distributed, and consumed. AI tools can now generate news articles, summaries, and even investigative reports, raising complex legal and ethical questions. This paper explores the existing legal framework governing AI-generated news in India, focusing on copyright law, defamation, data protection, and journalistic standards. It examines how current laws address issues like authorship rights, liability for misinformation or defamatory content, and the obligations of media organizations using AI. The study also analyses landmark judicial decisions that indirectly shape this emerging area, such as cases on press freedom and editorial responsibility. Furthermore, it highlights regulatory gaps and the need for updated policies to tackle challenges posed by automated journalism. By doing so, the paper aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about balancing innovation with accountability and protecting democratic values in the digital age.
KEYWORDS
Artificial Intelligence, News Media, Freedom of Speech, Defamation, Privacy, Copyright, Regulation, Ethics, India.
INTRODUCTION
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly transformed many sectors, and the field of news media is no exception. Today, AI tools can write articles, summarize events, and even generate entire news reports with minimal human intervention. This technology promises faster reporting and cost efficiency, but it also raises serious legal and ethical questions.
Who is responsible if an AI-generated article contains false or defamatory content? How can intellectual property rights be protected when news is created by algorithms? Does AI-generated content enjoy the same protections as human journalism under freedom of speech laws? These questions become critical as AI’s role in content creation continues to grow.
India, like many other countries, is yet to develop a comprehensive legal framework that specifically governs AI-generated news. While existing laws on defamation, copyright, and press regulation offer some guidance, they were designed for human actors, not autonomous systems. As a result, there are grey areas and legal uncertainties that need urgent attention.
This paper seeks to explore the current legal landscape governing AI-generated news in India. It examines how existing laws apply to such content, discusses key judicial pronouncements, and highlights the need for new regulations to address the unique challenges posed by AI in the media industry. By doing so, it aims to contribute to the evolving discourse on ensuring accountability, transparency, and ethical standards in AI-driven journalism.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PRESS FREEDOM
Article 19(1)(a) and its Limits
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution ensures that all citizens have the right to express their views and ideas without restraint.[1] This right also covers the freedom to share information, ideas, and opinions without undue interference.
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), the SC highlighted that press freedom is a vital part of this constitutional guarantee.[2] However, this freedom is not absolute. According to Article 19(2), the state is allowed to place “reasonable restrictions” on this right to preserve the sovereignty and integrity of India, ensure national security, maintain public order, protect decency and morality, and prevent actions like contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to crime. So, even AI-generated news must stay within these constitutional boundaries. Any content created by AI tools that violates these grounds can still attract legal scrutiny just like human-authored content.
Judicial Interpretation on Media Freedom
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972), the SC made it clear that press freedom is not just about the publisher’s right to print; it also includes the public’s right to receive information[3]. Likewise, in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641, the Court stressed how crucial a free press is for encouraging political debate and social discussion. These judicial observations extend to AI-generated news as well. Whether the content is created by humans or by machines, it still benefits from constitutional safeguards, though it remains subject to the reasonable restrictions laid down under Article 19(2).
ARTICLE 21 AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution[4]. This ruling has direct consequences for AI-generated news, especially when algorithms handle personal data or create deepfakes that might violate someone’s privacy. If AI systems generate or share personalized content that intrudes into an individual’s private life without their clear consent, it could amount to a breach of the privacy protections guaranteed by Article 21.
STATUTORY REGULATION: IT ACT, IPC, AND MEDIA CODES
Information Technology Act, 2000
The Information Technology Act, 2000 lays down the laws governing electronic communication and digital transactions in India. Under Section 79, it places certain responsibilities on intermediaries, like social media platforms and website hosts. The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021[5] further require these platforms to exercise due diligence and to promptly remove unlawful content once they become aware of it. However, these rules mainly deal with intermediaries. When it comes to AI-generated news, if an AI system produces false or defamatory content, the responsibility could still fall on the publisher or entity using the AI. This is because they ultimately control the tool and how the content is distributed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defamation and Public Mischief Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC define defamation and set out punishments for it. So, if an AI tool creates content that damages someone’s reputation, the operator or publisher could be held criminally liable. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of criminal defamation laws, stressing that protecting a person’s reputation is as important as preserving free speech.
Additionally, Section 505 IPC deals with statements that cause public mischief. This could apply to AI-generated fake news that stirs up public unrest or spreads harmful rumors.
COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP ISSUES
Copyright Act, 1957
Under Indian copyright law, Section 2(d) defines the “author” of a literary work in a way that generally assumes a human creator.[6] Section 2(o) does recognize computer programs, but there’s no express provision for works generated by AI without direct human involvement. This means that AI itself cannot own copyright under current Indian law.
Usually, the person or organization that uses the AI — such as a journalist or media company directing the AI’s work — is considered the author and holds the copyright. This aligns with international practice, like in the UK, where Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, treats the person making arrangements for the creation as the author.
Indian courts have not yet given clear rulings on whether purely AI-generated works qualify for copyright protection. This legal uncertainty means that, unless there is substantial human creativity involved, AI-generated news might often end up in the public domain.
EMERGING LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS
Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024
The draft Broadcasting Bill aims to bring digital news broadcasters — including online platforms — under regulatory oversight. It proposes compulsory registration, adherence to content codes, and setting up self-regulatory bodies like Content Evaluation Committees. If passed, this law would directly apply to AI-generated news too, treating it as part of the broader “news broadcasting” sector that must comply with these standards.[7]
Data Protection Laws
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) regulates how personal data is collected and used, requiring informed consent and imposing strict penalties for violations. Because AI systems often rely on vast datasets that may include personal information, the DPDP Act indirectly governs how data used to train AI — which later generates news content — must be handled.
LIABILITY AND THE PROBLEM OF FAKE NEWS
Deepfakes and Misinformation
AI-generated deepfakes present serious challenges. They can defame individuals, breach their privacy, or even disrupt public peace. Right now, Indian laws address these issues through traditional offences, like defamation under Sections 499–500 of the IPC, obscenity under Section 292, and provisions in the IT Act such as Section 66C, which deals with identity theft.
Recently, the Karnataka government introduced a draft Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, which aimed to criminalize the spread of “fake news” with punishments that could go up to 7 years in jail. However, this proposal faced heavy criticism for potentially going too far and threatening free expression.
Judicial Guidance
The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) [8]famously struck down Section 66A of the IT Act because it was too vague and could be misused, holding that any restrictions on online speech must be clear, narrowly tailored, and truly necessary. This principle applies just as much to future laws that might target AI-generated misinformation, ensuring they don’t violate fundamental constitutional rights.
ETHICAL AND EDITORIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Algorithmic Bias and the Need for Transparency
AI systems often pick up and reproduce the biases found in the data they are trained on. Ethical journalism demands accuracy, impartiality, and accountability. So, media organizations that use AI tools have a responsibility to keep strong editorial checks in place. Some organizations, like Reuters, have already put internal policies in place that require human editors to review AI-generatedcontent. This extra layer of oversight helps catch mistakes and minimize bias.
Maintaining Editorial Control
In the Bennett Coleman case, the Supreme Court recognized that editorial judgment is a core part of press freedom. This means that even when AI tools are used to create content, human editors must still have the final say. This is essential to uphold journalistic ethics as well as constitutional protections.
CONCLUSION
AI-generated news is still a growing trend that puts traditional legal frameworks in India to the test. Right now, constitutional rights like free speech and privacy, combined with laws on defamation, data protection, and copyright, collectively shape how AI-generated content is treated. But there’s no specific law that deals with unique issues like AI authorship, responsibility for mistakes, or maintaining editorial standards. Important Supreme Court judgments, from Bennett Coleman to Shreya Singhal, lay down critical principles that must guide any new regulations. As AI continues to transform journalism, India needs clear rules that secure accountability without blocking technological progress. Striking this balance will help protect both the integrity of public debate and individual rights in our increasingly digital world.
REFERENCES
- Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
- Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-k-s-puttaswamy-retd-v-s-union-of-india-2017/18929?utm
- Copyright Act, 1957https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15356?utm
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/?utm
- Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/media/panel-urges-mib-to-set-deadline-for-introducing-broadcasting-services-bill/articleshow/118988361.cms?utm
- Information Technology Act, 2000 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1999?utm
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090
[2] Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/?utm
[3] Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125596/?utm
[4] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-k-s-puttaswamy-retd-v-s-union-of-india-2017/18929?utm
[5] Information Technology Act, 2000 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1999?utm
[6] Copyright Act, 1957 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15356?utm
[7] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/media/panel-urges-mib-to-set-deadline-for-introducing-broadcasting-services-bill/articleshow/118988361.cms?utm
[8] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/?utm
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments