𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
18.9K subscribers
852 photos
11 videos
1.72K files
3.09K links
πŸ“² Contact β†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

☺️ 360° Cases on topics.

Keywords: Civil Judge, MPCJ, UP PSCJ, Haryana ADA, DJS, CBI APP, RJS, JLO, CLAT PG, Supreme Court law clerk, AIBE, IBPS, UGC NET.
_____________
🧠 Daily Quiz β†’ @LegalQuizzes

β³πŸš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Abetment Of Suicide | Instigation Must Be In Close Proximity To Suicide : Supreme Court Quashes Case Under S.306 IPC https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-judgment-explains-section-107-ipc-abetment-to-suicide-case-243649
πŸ—£οΈπŸ₯€ Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand

β€œTo attract the first clause under section 107 IPC, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.”
⚑ Act committed 2 weeks ago is not in close proximity

#Section_306_IPC

@CurrentLegalGK
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Regulating deepfakes and generative AI in India | Explained - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regulating-deepfakes-generative-ai-in-india-explained/article67591640.ece, For the best experience read this on The Hindu App. https://bit.ly/THNewsApp
πŸ€” Where Are we lacking?

Pointing out a lacuna in the existing IT Rules, she says that it only addresses instances whewherein the illegal content has already been uploaded and the resultant harm has been suffered ; instead, there has to be more focus on preventive measures, for instance, making users aware that they are looking at a morphed image.
Agreeing that there is a need to revamp the existing laws, Mr. Gupta points out that the current regulations only focus on either online takedowns in the form of censorship or criminal prosecution but lack a deeper understanding of how generative AI technology works and the wide range of harm that it can cause.

πŸ‘¨β€βš–οΈπŸ›οΈCurrent Regulationsβ€”
India lacks specific laws to address deepfakes and AI-related crimes, but provisions under a plethora of legislations could offer both civil and criminal relief. For instance, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is applicable in cases of deepfake crimes that involve the capture, publication, or transmission of a person’s images in mass media thereby violating their privacy. Such an offence is punishable with up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of β‚Ή2 lakh. Similarly, Section 66D of the IT Act punishes individuals who use communication devices or computer resources with malicious intent, leading to impersonation or cheating. An offence under this provision carries a penalty of up to three years imprisonment and/or a fine of β‚Ή1 lakh.
Further, Sections 67, 67A, and 67B of the IT Act can be used to prosecute individuals for publishing or transmitting deepfakes that are obscene or contain any sexually explicit acts. ⚑The IT Rules, also prohibit hosting β€˜any content that impersonates another person’ and require social media platforms to quickly take down β€˜artificially morphed images’ of individuals when alerted. In case they fail to take down such content, they risk losing the β€˜safe harbour’ protection β€” a provision that protects social media companies from regulatory liability for third-party content shared by users on their platforms.
⚑Provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) can also be resorted to for cybercrimes associated with deepfakes β€” Sections 509 (words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 499 (criminal defamation), and 153 (a) and (b) (spreading hate on communal lines) among others. The Delhi Police Special Cell has reportedly registered an FIR against unknown persons by invoking Sections 465 (forgery) and 469 (forgery to harm the reputation of a party) in the Mandanna case.

πŸ™‚ Opinion- A robust mechanism for comprehensive regulation for prevention of these crimes and enforcement mechanism is need to tackle AI based crimes..

Ab to Democracy bhi stake pe hai due to Elections being altered through these technologies.


@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘2πŸ”₯1