Opinion Kancha Gachibowli protest: Action against AI should not bulldoze citizen action
The story of Kancha Gachibowli is that of a unique social movement where creative expression of dissent took an unprecedented leap with AI-powered visual storytelling using the abundantly available real footage of deforestation and distressed wild animals. Such a depiction that pressed for the state's accountability was made possible with open-access generative AI platforms and the legal grey area that such technology occupies on questions of copyrights, transparency and liability.
AI content made with the intention to create misinformation, commit fraud, disturb public order, or the like are certainly matter to be pursued under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. In riot-hit Murshidabad, more than 1,000 social media accounts have been blocked by the state police in West Bengal for using AI in alleged criminal conspiracy and altering original videos and voices. In fact, if the state's urge to remove anti-social threads online is stronger, there is more legal homework to be done after the Bombay High Court struck down Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the amended IT Rules for not defining the terms 'fake', 'false' or 'misleading', and violating Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
But the more pertinent question to ask for when the state is indeed at fault, as witnessed in the Kancha Gachibowli movement, is what legal framework could be for ethical and non-malignant use of AI media — an online creative activity that allows everyone a chance to be R K Laxman and Hayao Miyazaki of the post-Covid era.
India is yet to pass laws that directly address AI as the core subject of regulation. Elsewhere, compulsory watermarking and labelling of deepfakes that disclose AI manipulation, with certain exceptions, are adopted as robust provisions under the European Union-AI Act, 2024 and its Digital Services Act, 2022. In the US, the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, 2023 includes mechanisms on labelling generative AI media and content provenance that traces its lifecycle. China's Deep Synthesis Regulation, 2023 stipulates that deep synthetic content with a tendency to mislead the public must explicitly be labelled as such in a reasonable position and area.
While the full extent of norms remains to be realised, it is an evident legal principle that AI platforms must take responsibility in revealing the source and context of generative output. India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued some advisories in the recent past on labelling synthetic media, but these legally non-binding communications were later withdrawn in parts.
As we await the legislature's move on overall AI regulation, the texture of our social fabric is under duress with the ill-considered enforcement of public order. In Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court adjudged the test for clear and present danger to public order and held, from an earlier judgement, that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless it leads to endangerment of community interest.
But in ground zero Telangana, Senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal was issued a notice by the police to appear as witness for posting a Ghibli-style AI illustration of tree-felling in Kancha Gachibowli. The same image was reportedly also shared by 2,000 other individuals on the X platform. As the state hardens its hold selectively, there are three splits in our social fabric that stare at us.
One, it is impossible for law enforcement to trace the origin of generative AI and the number of users who share it without adopting content provenance measures under a new parent AI law. Two, applying existing penal provisions on misinformation upon bonafide use of unregulated AI, especially that which upholds community interests, is outside the current mandate of the police, regardless of political pressure. And three, attempting to prosecute only some AI users without a basis of fact or clear and present danger to public order is a violation of judicial precedents and, as Sabharwal terms it, a compromise of the principles of natural justice and equality before the law.
What dangerously damages each distinct thread of our social fabric is the kind of generative AI that substantially violates Article 19(2) and the privacy and dignity of individuals guaranteed under Article 21. Unlike the AI-generated content highlighting the destruction of the Kancha Gachibowli forest by the state, the more empirical threat to public order is the unabated use of deep fakes that completely disregard the truth, defile the conscience of the community and destroy everyday lives systematically. The Delhi High Court is hearing three civil petitions that seek immediate regulation of deep fake technology, for which the MeitY is slated to submit a comprehensive report in July this year.
Rightfully so, laws and rules are not born overnight. In the meantime, therefore, the state must observe caution before proceeding to prosecute AI users en masse, who are largely unaware of the evolving legal subject, and spare a moment to ease tensions in the threads, sew up leftover loops and strengthen the social fabric while earning back public trust.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Indigenous Peoples and AI
More than 470 million Indigenous Peoples live across the world, distributed across 90 countries and splintered into unique communities with their own culture and traditional knowledge. Although they make up less than 6% of the world's population, indigenous individuals account for at least 15% of the poorest individuals in the world. As new, often disruptive technologies take over, and native lands are encroached upon, concerns arise over both how this would impact traditional knowledge ecosystems, and how they may be pressed into service for the benefit, rather than the exploitation, of Indigenous Peoples. Touching on these concerns, Indigenous Peoples and AI: Defending Rights, Shaping Futures was the theme at the centre of this year's observance of International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, celebrated each year on August 9. This day was selected for the observance to commemorate the first meeting of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations held in Geneva in 1982. 'Indigenous Peoples are guardians of ancient knowledge, defenders of cultural heritage, stewards of biodiversity, and essential to our shared future,' UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement issued ahead of the observance. An online discussion too was organised by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) on August 8, delving into how Indigenous people's rights can be ensured in the age of AI and how to include them in AI development and governance frameworks to further inclusive and non-exploitative use. We dive into some of the many concerns associated with Artificial Intelligence and Indigenous Peoples, highlighting what experts have recently shared about these issues. Concerns about Indigenous people and AI In 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (A/RES/78/265 ) which stressed that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be respected, protected and promoted throughout the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems. Several concerns have emerged about AI and how it may, directly or indirectly, contribute to the attrition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The note on the UNDESA website pertaining to this year's World Indigenous Peoples day highlights that while AI could promote 'cultural revitalization, youth empowerment, and adaptation to climate change', it runs the risk of reinforcing bias towards and exclusion or misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples, among other challenges. One major theme is the potential for exploitation of native knowledge and language. Danielle Boyer, a Anishinaabe robotics inventor working for the revitalization of Indigenous languages, urged that AI should be used with great care, and that if it was not used carefully then it should not be used at all, so as to prevent the systemic disappearance of indigenous languages. Ms. Boyer is the founder of the equitable tech education charity The STEAM Connection and inventor of Skobots, a robotic aide to learning indigenous languages such as the endangered Anishinaabemowin, and she took part in UNDESA's August 8 commemoration event as a panelist. She highlighted that AI was being used to exploit native knowledge and language, pointing to non-native authors using AI to create books about native culture. The way to fight back, she said, was by Indigenous Peoples developing their own technologies. She stressed that the skobots used internally developed AI,. functioning not as translators or Large Language Models (LLMs), but by breaking down words and using the voices of Indigenous persons. 'Technology sparks fear in our community for good reason,' she said, suggesting that being able to have self-determination in technology would help allay these concerns and ensure progress by Indigenous Peoples on this front. Another panelist at the event was Pyrou Chung, the founder of Knowledge for Development (K4D) and Director at the East-West Management Institute, who works with indigenous people in South- east Asia for the preservation of rights in the face of climate change. While Ms. Chung acknowledged the potential of AI to support justice, she also highlighted the presence of agendas driven by larger powers, and the presence of colonial and westernised approaches in AI. Calling much of the AI being developed a distraction, Ms. Chung said there was a lack of real-world interaction and context in its creation. Another key concern is that native land may be encroached upon for building the massive data centres that are integral to AI systems. Sites around AI data centres can see environmental degradation and negative impacts on the local ecosystems on which the Indigenous people depend. Further, AI data centres consume massive amounts of electricity, contributing to the depletion of finite natural resources and adding to the pressure caused by climate change, according to the UN. It is to harness the power of indigenous knowledge for AI without exploitation or environmental impacts that the research programme Abundant Intelligences was created. It 'conceptualizes, designs, develops, and deploys Artificial Intelligence based on Indigenous Knowledge systems' and aims to take an approach 'grounded in Indigenous epistemologies' to create technology that integrates into 'existing lifeways.' An international team , co-directed by Prof. Lewis at the Indigenous Futures Research Centre at Concordia University, Montreal, and Prof. Hemi Whaanga at Massey University in New Zealand, is a part of the programme, which comprises 13 universities and 8 community-based organisations across the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. The programme kicked off in March 1, 2023 and will run till February 29, 2029. A real world example of this kind of collaboration was a pilot AI model created by PolArctic in an Inuit community in Nunavut, Canada combining Indigenous Knowledge and scientific data, to help deal with inshore fishing challenges resulting from climate change. The project, which was conducted at Sanikiluaq, was funded by the Nunavut Fishery Association, Qikiqtaaluk Corporation and the World Wildlife Fund. The project identified areas likely to be abundant in scallops, clams and kelp, using research interviews, maps, and material from the Nunavut Coastal Resource Inventory (NCRI). As seen in this project, AI projects often see the collection of vast pools of data to train models. This leads to a second concern: the gathering of data or the extraction of resources without consent. Such consent must be free and informed, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples. Fernando Marani, Programme Director of Justice, Inclusion, and Equality at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, spoke about the history of not respecting ownership of Indigenous people, and stressed that it was important to protect data related to indigenous culture and knowledge, ensuring that access is shared only to those who need it. Ms. Boyer too, highlighted that working on creating ethical AI frameworks, being able to have the right to refuse to share data, and informed consent were other necessary factors. In the world of the tech, the mantra is to 'move fast and break things,' but here the 'things' being broken are people and communities, she pointed out. At the other end of the spectrum, the exclusion of data from Indigenous peoples and a lack of representation of their views can also create challenges in the creation of equitable AI models. The need to ensure that indigenous people are included in the data used in AI was a point raised during Friday's discussion by Anne Torill Nordsletta, Director of the Health Analytics Department at the Norwegian Centre for E-health Research. She highlighted that AI was now being used for healthcare and public decision-making, and that without including data about indigenous peoples, there was the risk of building systems which reinforced inequalities. Ms. Nordsletta, who also lectures part-time at the Sami University, stressed that indigenous self-determination must be built into AI governance. At the base of the challenges associated with AI is the very fundamental one of who gets to access these tools and how. Mr. Marani highlighted the need to close the existing digital gap for indigenous people and ensure equal access to the digital realm. The barriers to access of new tech, particularly in rural areas, has also been recognised through the World Summit of the Information Society process. With access comes awareness as well. Moi Guiquita, an Indigenous Waorani based in the Amazon in Ecuador, uses technology to promote Indigenous land rights, environmental conservation and human rights, creating content which has reached millions through the internet, both through social media platforms and collaborations with international organisations such as Amazon Frontlines, the Pulitzer Centre and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation. Ensuring the presence of Indigenous Peoples in AI governance frameworks might enable the formulation of policies which are responsive to the needs and concerns of various communities. A need for such meaningful inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the development, governance and application stages was part of the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in its 24th session held in April-May 2025. Hernán Vales, Chief of the Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section at UN Human Rights, said, 'Data sovereignty and governance are critical challenges that must be addressed in order to mitigate risks,' He was speaking on the occasion of a side event focused on AI at the 18th session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) on August 7, 2025. Mr. Marani emphasised that indigenous people should be part of AI oversight and governance, and mooted the creation of Indigenous People-led ethics boards. He also stressed that traditional inequalities should not reflect in AI, for which owning one's data and creating one's own solutions was a good way forward. An example of this: Shani Gwin is the founder of Pipikwan Pêhtâkwan which developed an indigenous powered AI called 'wâsikan kisewâtisiwin', or AI With Heart. It seeks to correct unconscious bias or racism directed to Indigenous Peoples in written materials. Ms Gwin is a sixth-generation Métis Canadian and descendant of the Michel First Nation, who also participated in the 18th session of the EMRIP. And at times, AI may not be the solution at all. Ms. Chung questioned the premise that AI could solve all issues, highlighting that traditional knowledge or technologies could be used by environmental defenders to combat climate change. She noted that her organisation focused on capacity-building for indigenous women leaders, thus enabling them to gather and use their data in a way that was contextual to their lived realities. Other initiatives and projects In addition to this year's thematic focus, several other initiatives pertaining to Indigenous knowledge, its preservation and promotion continue to be undertaken by the United Nations and its organs. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) gave out ten 2025 Equator Prizes to community-based, Indigenous-led organizations which created sustainable solutions for development issues. The theme for the prize this year was 'Nature for Climate Action,' with a prize of $10,000 and the opportunity to join global events like the UN General Assembly and the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil. Winners include Bibifathima Swa Sahaya from India, which works to support farmers through initiatives like seed banks, multi-cropping, and processing which harness solar power, and the Mitra BUMMA and Ranu Welum foundations from Indonesia, which promote rainforest conservation in different ways. Groups from Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Kenya and Tanzania also won the prize for their work combining indigenous knowledge and sustainable development. Besides this, the UN has sought to promote the conservation of indigenous languages, designating the decade from 2022 to 2032 as the Decade of Indigenous Languages. The Equator initiative, a global network promoted by UNDP, seeks to recognise the wisdom and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities around the world. Along with the International Day of World's Indigenous Peoples, several nations also have their own observances, in keeping with local customs. The United States, for example, observes Indigenous Peoples Day on the second Monday of October. The festival, which honours the native populations of the Americas, including American Indians, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians, arose as a response to Columbus Day, which felicitates Christopher Columbus— the man who discovered America and thereby led to its colonisation.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court not superior to high courts, says Chief Justice BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has stated that the Supreme Court is not superior to any high court in the country. Speaking at an event to celebrate the 79th Independence Day on Friday, the chief justice said that both courts are equal. The Chief Justice further added that the top court "cannot dictate" a high court collegium to recommend a particular name for judgeship.(PTI) The Chief Justice further added that the top court "cannot dictate" a high court collegium to recommend a particular name for judgeship. Also Read | Independence Day 2025: PM Modi's 5 big announcements in record 103-minute speech "Ultimately, even the Supreme Court Collegium can't dictate the high court collegium to recommend the names... the Supreme Court is not a superior court to the high court," said Gavai. "Both the Supreme Court and the high court are constitutional court, and so far as the constitutional scheme is concerned, they are neither inferior nor superior to each other," the CJI added further. The Chief Justice further shared that the first call regarding the appointment has to be taken by the high court collegium. Also Read | CJI to look into stray dogs matter as lawyer claims conflicting orders by court "We only recommend the names to the high court collegium and request them to consider the names, and only after their satisfaction that the candidates deserve the designation, the names come to the Supreme Court," he added. In his speech, he also welcomed the initiative started by former chief justice Sanjiv Khanna where the Supreme Court collegium interacts with the candidates during the selection process. CJI Gavai said that after interacting with the candidates for "10 minutes, 15 minutes or half an hour", the SC collegium can find out as to how suitable they would be to contribute to society. (With inputs from PTI)
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Omar Abdullah's statehood signature drive sparks Opposition heat in J&K
Srinagar, Aug 15 (UNI) J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's announcement of a door-to-door signature campaign across the Union Territory for the restoration of J&K's statehood has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties. Peoples Democratic Party MLA and legislature party leader in J&K Assembly Waheed Parra accused Omar of 'betraying' the people of Jammu and Kashmir by reducing the fight for statehood to 'token gestures' through a signature campaign. 'Omar Abdullah owes an apology not a signature campaign for normalising 5th August. With 50 MLAs behind him, he has reduced the fight for J&K's statehood to token gestures, after seeking votes door-to-door on the promise of restoring pre–5th August status. This is not just retreat, it is betrayal,' Parra said in a post on X. The PDP MLA claimed that the people gave Omar Abdullah a historic mandate to 'fight for Article 370 and statehood, not to stage political theatre.' 'If he has already surrendered, he must admit it and apologise to every citizen of J&K for selling promises he never intended to keep,' Parra said. The Peoples Conference president and MLA Handwara Sajad Lone asked Omar to stop "theatrics and pass an Assembly resolution on statehood." He warned against 'making a mockery' of the 'cause' and urged a dignified, constitutional route. He challenged Omar to 'once and for all' explain his reluctance to have a resolution for statehood passed in the Legislative Assembly — a constitutional body elected through the Election Commission of India. 'Our resolutions are not binding on the Supreme Court, but inherent in them will be constitutional dignity. It will be a constitutional message to the highest court in the country. Political or signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity. Name one event empirically in India or anywhere in the world where signature campaigns have altered legal interpretations. They are not even admissible,' he asserted. Recalling that 'a signature campaign for independence was carried out by Yasin Malik also — how far did that campaign go,' Lone accused Omar of showing 'disregard, disdain and contempt' for the very Assembly that gave him the CM's position. 'You derive your power, perks and Chief Ministerial position from the Assembly. Why this contempt for the very institution that has made you the CM?' he asked. 'I beg you — please stop this childish and immature attitude. We will support any campaign unconditionally. But please ensure that a resolution from the UT Assembly is also passed and sent to the Supreme Court. We are facing a battle of a lifetime. A door-to-door signature campaign is nothing but theatrics. Tell me, is the Supreme Court answerable to majoritarian assertions or to law? Majoritarianism is something politicians practise. Supreme Court practises law,' Lone cautioned. National Conference president and former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah said the signature campaign for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's statehood will be run vigorously. 'The campaign will be run vigorously,' Farooq told reporters in Srinagar after attending the Independence Day function. UNI MJR PRS
