Parliamentary Panel Pushes Licensing, Labels and Legal Action to Curb AI Fake News

Parliamentary Panel Seeks Legal and Tech Toolkit to Tackle AI-Generated Fake News

A parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology has urged the Government of India to build concrete legal and technological solutions to identify and prosecute those behind AI-generated fake news. The draft report, led by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and submitted to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, will be tabled in the next session. The committee stresses a balanced approach: AI can help flag misinformation, but it can also produce it-therefore, human oversight remains essential.

Core Recommendations at a Glance

• Close coordination between the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, MeitY, and related ministries to craft enforceable legal and technical measures.
• Explore licensing requirements for AI content creators.
• Mandate labelling of AI-generated videos and other content.
• Amend penal provisions, increase fines, and fix accountability for dissemination of AI-generated misinformation.
• Require every print, digital, and electronic media organisation to have a fact-checking mechanism and an internal ombudsman, developed through consensus with media bodies and stakeholders.
• Use AI to flag potentially false content, followed by human review as a second layer-avoid fully automated fact-checking.

While the recommendations are not binding, such committee reports often guide executive action. The committee noted MeitY has already formed a nine-member panel on deepfakes and is backing two projects: one for fake speech detection using deep learning, and another for detecting deepfake videos and images.

Why This Matters for Legal Teams

Licensing and labelling proposals signal movement toward ex-ante controls on content creation and distribution. If implemented, expect detailed rulemaking on eligibility, obligations, auditability, revocation, and appeals. Ensure your compliance teams are ready to interpret and operationalise future licence terms.

Labelling mandates may require watermarking or metadata standards, and could impose duties on creators, publishers, and platforms. Tracking responsibility across a complex supply chain will be a key legal challenge-especially with cross-border content and anonymous posting.

Criminal and civil exposure may expand through amended penal provisions and higher fines. This raises immediate questions on due process, proportionality, and constitutional scrutiny under Article 19(2). Expect debates on intent vs negligence, gradation of offences, and mens rea standards for synthetic media misuse.

Platform liability will be in focus. Intermediary due-diligence under existing rules may tighten, with pressure for proactive detection while preserving safe-harbour principles. Watch for any shift that effectively mandates automated monitoring or traceability that could impact encryption and privacy commitments.

Evidence and Prosecution Considerations

• Strengthen digital evidence workflows: chain of custody, hashing, and preservation of original files and metadata.
• Plan for expert testimony on model provenance, watermark verification, and detection tool reliability (false positive/negative rates).
• Prepare Section 65B certifications and protocols for admissibility of electronic records in line with the Indian Evidence Act.

Reference materials: IT Rules, 2021 (MeitY); Indian Evidence Act - Section 65B.

Immediate Actions for General Counsel and Compliance

• Map exposure: inventory where your organisation creates, uses, or distributes AI-generated content; document risk controls and ownership.
• Adopt clear AI content policies: disclosure and labelling, watermarking, record-keeping, and review gates for high-risk content.
• Update contracts and policies: contributor agreements, vendor terms, and platform ToS to allocate responsibility and indemnities for synthetic media misuse.
• Build a verification pipeline: AI-based triage to flag suspect items, followed by human review with escalation paths.
• Prepare for regulatory engagement: designate a point person, draft positions on licensing, labelling standards, and due-diligence obligations; engage in industry consultations.
• Establish an internal ombuds function or equivalent grievance process for content disputes; log decisions for audit and regulatory inquiries.

Open Questions to Track

• Precise definition of "AI-generated fake news" and treatment of satire, opinion, and parody.
• Jurisdiction and extra-territorial reach for foreign creators and platforms.
• Standards for detection tools: accuracy thresholds, audits, and avenues to challenge false positives.
• Transparency requirements for labelling and watermarking, including accessibility for people with disabilities.
• Interplay with privacy, encryption, and intermediary safe-harbour protections.

What's Next

The draft report is set to be tabled in the next parliamentary session. Expect inter-ministerial work on licensing feasibility, labelling standards, and amendments to penalty frameworks. Legal teams should prepare positions now, so that your feedback is ready when consultations open.