Data Privacy, AI, And Technology Newsletter | July 2026

We are pleased to present the July 2026 edition of the Data Privacy, AI and Technology Newsletter. This edition highlights significant regulatory developments and judicial pronouncements across the technology, telecommunications and fintech sectors, with a particular focus on artificial intelligence governance, cybersecurity, digital infrastructure, payment systems, financial services regulation and emerging data governance frameworks. Through this newsletter, we aim to provide businesses and stakeholders with practical insights into the evolving legal and regulatory landscape shaping India's digital economy.

Updates: Industry Updates: India

Technology Updates

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India constitutes Working Group on AI governance in the insurance sector

June 17, 2026: The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has constituted a Working Group on AI Governance in the Insurance Sector (WG-AI) to develop a governance framework for the responsible adoption and oversight of AI by IRDAI regulated entities. The WG-AI will examine the impact of AI on the insurance sector, assess the existing level of AI adoption and governance, review global regulatory approaches and recommend frameworks for ethical, transparent, and explainable AI use, including in claims processing and fraud detection. It will also suggest frameworks for implementing reasonable security controls to mitigate risks from AI driven automated attacks. The WG-AI has been directed to submit its recommendations within 3 months of its constitution.

Link Here

CERT-In issues guidelines regarding AI-accelerated vulnerability protection and response requirements for original equipment manufacturers and technology providers

June 10, 2026: CERT-In issued guidelines regarding AI-accelerated vulnerability protection and response requirements for Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and technology providers which inter alia includes software vendors, cloud service providers, managed service providers operating in India. These guidelines are intended to help build cybersecurity resilience to the AI-powered cyber threats through the use of improved vulnerability management, secure development practices and incident response. The key guidelines inter alia include:

• Vulnerability assessments: OEMs and technology providers should conduct comprehensive vulnerability assessments using both traditional security testing methodologies as well as AI-enabled discovery techniques which include leveraging machine learning, large language models, skills files, reasoning and automated testing.
• AI-based risk assessment: OEMs and technology providers should also assess risks arising from the deployment and use of AI enabled services, APIs, plugins and automation tools based on parameters like data sensitivity, autonomy, connectivity and impact.
• Immediate disclosure: any critical or high severity vulnerability and any zero-day or actively exploited vulnerability must be communicated to affected organisations and CERT-In immediately upon discovery, together with interim mitigation guidance and indicators of compromise.
• Incident response: OEMS and technology providers should establish formal incident response and disclosure processes and furthermore, the guidelines reaffirm the existing obligation under the CERT-In Directions dated April 28, 2022, to report cyber incidents within 6 hours.

Link Here

Apex Court invites public comments on draft ‘Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026

June 3, 2026: Apex Court has published a preliminary draft of the ‘Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026’ (Draft Regulations) seeking public feedback until June 20, 2026. The Draft Regulations has been prepared under the aegis of the AI Committee of the Apex Court and seeks to govern the use of AI across India’s judicial system, grounded in the principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence, while establishing an institutional framework for responsible AI adoption. The key features of Draft Regulations inter alia includes:

• Application: The Draft Regulations apply to the use, deployment, or integration of AI in any judicial, adjudicatory, or administrative function of the Apex Court, the High Courts and all Courts, Tribunals, and statutory Commissions performing adjudicatory functions across India.
• Human primacy: AI is to remain strictly subservient to human judgment, functioning solely in an assistive capacity, with ultimate authority over matters of law, fact, and justice vesting exclusively in judicial officers. Accountability for AI-assisted decisions rests exclusively on the judicial officer concerned, who may not invoke AI outputs, black-box opacity, or hallucination as defence.
• Permissible uses: Subject to prior written approval by the appropriate authority, AI may be used for illustrative purposes such as case management, transcription, translation, legal research, precedent retrieval, citation verification, document summarisation, administrative functions, chatbots for litigant assistance, accessibility services, anonymisation of records and analytical tools for judicial administration.
• Prohibited uses: Certain uses are absolute and non-derogable, including reaching any judicial outcome through algorithmic decision-making alone, adjudication or sentencing without a mandatory human-in-the-loop, risk scoring (such as flight risk, recidivism, or bail eligibility).
• Data protection and cyber security: All AI systems deployed in Court processes must comply with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Principles of data minimisation and anonymisation must also be applied and transfers of sensitive judicial data to external systems must be restricted. Furthermore, every AI system in use in Court processes must undergo annual cyber security audits.

Link Here

Telecommunication Updates

DoT notified a new authorization framework replacing the old licensing system

June 23, 2026: Department of Telecommunications (DoT) notified a new regulatory framework for provision of telecommunication services. This marks a shift from the erstwhile ‘Licensing’ system under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to a new ‘Authorisation’ framework established under the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

As part of this transition, the DoT notified the following rules:

• the Telecommunications (Authorisation for Provision of Principal Telecommunication Services) Rules, 2026 (Principal Services Rules);
• the Telecommunications (Authorisation for Captive Telecommunication Services) Rules, 2026; (Captive Services Rules);
• the Telecommunications (Authorisation for Provision of Miscellaneous Telecommunication Services) Rules, 2026 (Miscellaneous Services Rules) (Collectively termed as Authorisation Rules 2026); and
• the Telecommunications (Terms and Conditions for Migration) Rules, 2026 (Migration Rules).

Principal Services Rules:

Under the Principal Services Rules, applicants must obtain authorisation as a network service operator, virtual network operator, or both, to provide one or more telecommunication services within the scope and service area specified below:

• unified service authorisation;
• access service authorisation;
• wireline access service authorisation;
• internet service authorisation; and
• long distance service authorisation for national service area.

A company can apply for authorisation if it complies with (a) the prescribed requirements of minimum paid-up equity capital and minimum net worth as per Schedule C of the Principal Services Rules; (b) Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) requirements as per the FDI Policy issued by the Government of India; and (c) is sound in terms of track record in providing telecommunication services or network operations.

Additionally, if the company holds one or more authorisations or is seeking additional authorisations, it must maintain a minimum paid-up equity capital and net worth equal to the sum of the minimum paid-up equity capital requirement for all such authorisations or licenses.

Link Here

Captive Services Rules:

Under the Captive Services Rules, applicants must obtain authorisation within the scope and service area specified below:

• Captive mobile radio trunking services;
• Captive non-public networks;
• Captive very small aperture terminal services; and
• Captive general services.

Applicants eligible for authorisation under the Captive Service Rules include companies, government departments, courts, government-controlled entities and certain statutory bodies, subject to prescribed conditions.

A company can apply for authorisation if: (a) it complies with FDI requirements as per the FDI Policy issued by the Government of India; and (b) is sound in terms of track record in providing telecommunication services or network operations.

Further, only a government company can obtain captive general services authorization.

However, the abovementioned conditions may be relaxed or exempted for public interest by the Central Government.

Link Here

Miscellaneous Services Rules:

Under the Miscellaneous Services Rules, applicants must obtain authorisation within the scope and service area specified below:

• public mobile radio trunking services;
• enterprise communication services;
• Machine-to-Machine Services (M2M Services);
• Prime Minister Wi-Fi Access Network Interface services;
• in-flight and maritime connectivity services; and
• aeronautical data communication services.

A company can apply for authorisation if: (a) it complies with FDI requirements as per the FDI Policy issued by the Government of India; and (b) is sound in terms of track record in providing telecommunication services or network operations.

Further, applicants seeking authorisation for providing M2M Services, may also include other prescribed entities such as sole proprietorships, partnership firms, trusts, etc.

However, the abovementioned conditions may be relaxed or exempted for public interest by the Central Government.

Link Here

Migration Rules:

The Migration Rules provide the procedures for migration, allowing existing licensees under the old regime to migrate to corresponding authorisations under the new framework.

The Authorisation Rules, 2026, and the Migration Rules prohibit overlapping licenses or authorisations covering the same scope and service area. Applicants will be required to surrender overlapping licenses when obtaining new authorizations.

Link Here

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued the draft Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026

June 12, 2026: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued the draft Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026 (Draft Rules). These Draft Rules consolidate multiple guidelines to simplify and harmonize the existing regime in the television and radio broadcasting sector.

The guidelines integrated into these Draft Rules are as follows:

• Policy Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking of Satellite Television Channels in India, dated November 9, 2022;
• Guidelines for obtaining a license to provide Direct-to-Home (DTH) Broadcasting Services in India, dated March 15, 2001, as amended from time to time;
• Guidelines for providing Headend-in-the-Sky (HITS) Broadcasting Services in India, dated November 26, 2009;
• Policy Guidelines on Expansion of FM Radio Broadcasting Services through Private Agencies (Phase III), dated July 25, 2011, as amended up to September 10, 2024;
• Revised Policy Guidelines for setting up Community Radio Stations in India, dated February 13, 2024; and
• Guidelines for provisioning of Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) Services, dated September 8, 2008.

Key highlights of these Draft Rules are, inter alia, as follows:

• Types of authorizations: include (a) Television channel (including news and non-news channels); (b) Television channel distribution services (including Direct-to-home and Head-end in the sky); (c) Teleport; (d) News agency for television; (e) Private radio service; and (f) Community radio service.
• Migration of authorization: entity holding a license/ registration/ permission granted prior to the notification of these rules can submit for migration to the abovementioned type of authorization.
• Security conditions: Every authorized entity, including its key managerial personnel (KMPs) and governing body members, will be required to remain security-cleared for the entire period of the authorization. Before the appointment of KMPs, the authorized entity will be required to submit the details on the designated portal to obtain security clearance.

A majority of the directors, partners, and KMPs must be residents of India of an entity holding authorization for (a) a news channel; (b) a news agency for television; (c) a television channel distribution service; and (d) a private radio service.

Further, all foreign personnel deployed for broadcasting network activities must get security clearance from the Central Government before deployment.

Link Here

Fintech Updates

RBI issued the Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Responsible Business Conduct) Second Amendment Directions, 2026

June 24, 2026: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued the Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Responsible Business Conduct) Second Amendment Directions, 2026 (RBC Amendment Directions) to amend the Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Responsible Business Conduct) Directions, 2025.

The RBC Amendment Directions will apply in cases of electronic banking transactions (EBT) undertaken by customers of a bank on or after January 1, 2027. These directions have been passed enhance the scope of existing instructions on limiting liability of customers in unauthorised electronic banking transactions.

Key highlights of RBC Amendments Directions, inter alia, include:

• Policy: Payment Banks (PBs) must formulate a policy addressing customer protection in EBTs, inter alia covering: (i) channels for notifying customers of occurrences of EBTs and reporting fraudulent EBTs; (ii) the rights and obligations of customers in relation to EBTs; (iii) timelines for complaint resolution and disclosure to customers; and (iv) mechanisms for enhancing customer awareness of their rights, obligations, and the risks associated with EBTs.

The policy must be transparent, non-discriminatory and displayed on the PB’s website along with the details of grievance handling / escalation procedure.

• Alerts for EBTs: PBs must obtain and verify customers' mobile numbers and, where available, email addresses at onboarding and at specified intervals. PBs must also send instant SMS alerts for all EBTs exceeding INR 500 and email alerts for all EBTs where an email address is provided.
• Reporting of fraudulent EBTs by customers to PBs: PBs must advise customers to report fraudulent EBTs and lodge complaints through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal or National Cyber Crime Helpline (1930).

PBs are required to (i) provide customers with 24x7 access or reporting fraudulent EBTs that have taken place and / or loss or theft of debit card, etc.; (ii) provide a number in the transaction alert SMS itself, to which the customer can immediately send an SMS to notify her / his objection, if any; and (iii) provide a direct link on the home page of its website and mobile application to report fraudulent EBTs.

PBs are also required to register reports of fraudulent EBTs as complaints and provide customers with an immediate acknowledgement, including the complaint number and the date and time of receipt, through appropriate communication channels.

• Liability in fraudulent EBTs: The burden of proving customer liability for fraudulent EBTs rests with the PB. Customers are entitled to zero liability and reversal of transaction if fraudulent EBTs occurs due to PB negligence/ deficiency irrespective of whether the transaction is reported by the customer or not and in third-party breach if reported within 5 calendar days. In cases of customer negligence, customers are liable for losses to the extent of loss not eligible for compensation as per the prescribed mechanism until the fraudulent EBT is reported to the PB. While losses arising after such reporting are borne by the PB.

Link Here

RBI issued Master Directions on Authorisation to operate a Payment System

June 15, 2026: RBI issued the Master Directions on Authorisation to operate a Payment System (PS Directions). The PS Directions apply to (i) entities applying for authorisation to operate a payment system and (ii) entities already authorised to operate a payment system under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.

The PS Directions consolidate previously issued circulars/ guidelines namely:

• Computation of Net-worth dated January 16, 2015.
• Guidelines for Voluntary Surrender of Certificate of Authorisation dated May 12, 2016.
• On-tap Authorisation of Payment Systems dated October 15, 2019.
• Authorisation of entities for operating a Payment System under the PSS Act - Introduction of Cooling Period dated December 04, 2020.
• Perpetual Validity for Certificate of Authorisation (CoA) issued to Payment System Operators dated December 04, 2020.
• Investment in Entities from FATF Non-compliant Jurisdictions dated June 14, 2021.
• Framework for Voluntary Surrender of Certificate of Authorisation dated May 12, 2023.

Key highlights of The PS Directions, inter alia, are as follows:

• Investment in entities from Financial Action Task Force (FATF) non-compliant jurisdictions: Existing investors in Payment System Operators (PSOs) who invested before the relevant jurisdiction was classified as FATF non-compliant may continue investments or bring in additional investments to support business continuity in India. However, new investors from or through non-compliant FATF jurisdictions cannot acquire ‘significant influence’ in a PSO. Fresh investment must remain below 20% of the voting power, including potential voting power of the PSO.
• Validity period of Certificate of Authorisation: Authorisation to operate a payment system to a new entity will be given on a perpetual basis. Existing PSOs may be provided perpetual validity when the Certificate of Authorisation (CoA) becomes due for renewal, subject to adherence to prescribed conditions. PSOs that do not meet the prescribed conditions may be granted one-year renewals to facilitate compliance.
• Cooling Period: RBI may impose a cooling period of one year in the following situations:
  • PSOs whose CoA is revoked or not renewed; or
  • CoA is voluntarily surrendered for any reason; or
  • Application for authorisation of a payment system has been refused by RBI;
  • New entities that are set-up by promoters involved in any of the above categories.

Link Here

RBI issued amendment directions on advertising, marketing and sale of financial products/services for PBs and NBFCs

June 15, 2026: RBI issued amendment directions on advertising, marketing, and sale of financial products/services to PBs and Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) as follows:

• Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Responsible Business Conduct) Second Amendment Directions, 2026 dated June 15, 2026; and
• Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies - Responsible Business Conduct) Second Amendment Directions, 2026.

These amendments make provisions for Compulsory bundling, Dark pattern and Explicit consent and will come into effect on January 01, 2027. Key highlights of the amendment directions, inter alia, include:

• PBs/NBFCs are now required to adopt a policy for advertising, marketing, and sale of their own as well as third-party financial products/services, covering product suitability and appropriateness, customer feedback mechanisms, and compensation in cases of mis-selling etc.
• PBs/NBFCs availing the services of direct selling agents (DSA)/ direct marketing agents (DMA) for sale / marketing of its own or third-party financial products / services must maintain an updated list of empanelled/engaged DSAs/DMAs in the manner prescribed, which should be displayed on their website.
• PBs/NBFCs must also ensure that their employees and DSAs/DMAs sub-agents selling their own or third-party products/services possess the requisite qualifications/certifications, if prescribed.
• PBs/NBFCs must obtain explicit consent from the customer to which products/services, whether own or third-party, are offered/sold. Explicit consent can be obtained through a signed declaration, OTP based approval, digitally recorded confirmation, consent embedded in a clearly demarcated section of the agreement, etc. When multiple products/services are offered on the same form, each product must be listed separately, and customers must be free to select only the products they want. Such consent and related records should be preserved for one year from the date of cessation of the contractual agreement with respect to the product / service. Further all key features of the product / service must be disclosed prominently.

Link Here

Link Here

RBI issued the Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Undertaking of Financial Services) Amendment Directions, 2026

June 15, 2026: RBI published the Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Undertaking of Financial Services) Amendment Directions, 2026 (PB Amendment Directions) which further amends the Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Undertaking of Financial Services) Directions, 2025. The PB Amendment Directions will come into effect on January 1, 2027. Key amendments made in the PB Amendment Directions include the addition of new provisions relating to referral services.

Under the PB Amendment Directions, PBs can refer customers to a third-party product and services (TPPS) only for regulated financial products and services, subject to the product regulator’s instructions and conditions below:

• Compliance with the Reserve Bank of India (Payments Banks - Responsible Business Conduct) Directions, 2025.
• The PB’s role should be purely referral-based. The PB can market and refer the TPPS to customers but cannot sell it under a referral arrangement. This must be clearly stated up front in a disclaimer.
• The PB’s name or brand must not appear in any product or service documents.
• TPPS listed under a PB’s referral arrangement must be published on its websites, mobile apps, and digital channels for transparency.
• No TPPS processes should be integrated with the PB’s platform, carried out on premises (unless permitted), or be accessible via micro-site or micro-application, except for a redirect link to TPPSP.
• The selection of the TPPSP be done with proper due diligence so as to take care of the reputational risks to which the bank may be exposed to while dealing with the TPPSP. It must also ensure that the TPPSP has strong customer grievance redressal mechanisms.

Link here

RBI issued the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies - Undertaking of Financial Services) Second Amendment Directions, 2026

June 15, 2026: RBI published the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies - Undertaking of Financial Services) Second Amendment Directions, 2026 (NBFC Amendment Directions) which further amends the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies- Undertaking of Financial Services) Directions, 2025. The NBFC Amendment Directions will come into effect on January 1, 2027.

Key amendments made in the NBFC Amendment Directions, inter alia, include:

Amendment of the provision relating to undertaking insurance business: NBFCs can take up insurance distribution business, either under the corporate agency or broking model, without RBI approval, subject to compliance with, inter alia, the following:

• NBFCs will be required to obtain permission from IRDAI and comply with the applicable IRDAI regulations.
• The business must be on a fee basis without any risk participation.
• NBFCs must ensure insurance companies have strong grievance redressal systems and may assist in resolving complaints.
• Only insurance products covered under the arrangement must be listed on NBFC's websites or digital channels.
• Amendment of the provision relating to undertaking mutual fund distribution business: NBFCs seeking to distribute mutual funds must comply with the following:
• NBFCs must comply with the SEBI guidelines/regulations, including its code of conduct, for mutual fund product distribution.
• The business must be on a fee basis without any risk participation. This should be explicitly disclosed upfront to the customers
• NBFCs must ensure that the Mutual Funds have strong grievance redressal systems and may assist in resolving complaints.
• Only mutual fund products covered under the arrangement must be listed on NBFC's websites or digital channels.

Link Here

Judgements

Delhi High Court upholds temporary Section 69A blocking of Telegram to protect NEET UG, 2026 examination integrity

June 19, 2026: In Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 8259/2026), the Delhi High Court (DHC) dismissed a writ petition challenging directions issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) for temporary blocking of the Telegram platform and disabling of its message-editing feature, holding that the measures did not suffer from non-application of mind and satisfied the requirement of proportionality, having been narrowly tailored to secure the integrity of the NEET UG, 2026 re-examination.

Facts and background of the case

The National Testing Agency (NTA) had informed MeitY of the misuse of Telegram by third parties in connection with examination fraud relating to NEET UG, 2026, involving approximately 2.2 million candidates. Following a meeting on June 3, 2026 and sharing of URLs of offending Telegram channels, accounts and bots, MeitY, by an interim order dated June 16, 2026 (Impugned Order) passed under Section 69A of the IT Act on the request of the Ministry of Home Affairs and NTA, directed that Telegram and its associated URLs be blocked across India within 1 hour of the receipt of the Impugned Order until June 22, 2026 and that the message-editing feature be disabled until June 30, 2026. Furthermore, the matter be placed before the Committee under Rule 7 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (2009 Rules) for consideration and recommendation within 48 hours of issuance of the Impugned Order. After the writ petition was filed, the Committee under Rule 7 passed a final order dated June 18, 2026 confirming the Impugned Order. The petitioners contended that the Impugned Order suffered from non-application of mind, that a platform-wide block was disproportionate and affected over 150 million lawful users in India, and that Section 69A empowers the blocking of specific ‘information’ only and not the blocking of an entire intermediary platform.

Judgment

DHC framed two issues for determination, namely whether the Impugned Order was vitiated by non-application of mind, and whether the temporary blocking of public access to the entire Telegram platform satisfied the requirement of proportionality, and held as follows:

On non-application of mind, DHC held that, given the emergency nature of the Impugned Order, the reasons supplied were sufficient, and that a direct and substantial nexus existed between the direction issued and the reasons assigned. Since the statutory scheme of Section 69A read with the 2009 Rules contemplates an interim blocking direction upon the Secretary's satisfaction, followed by a post-decisional hearing before a final order is passed, the petitioners’ insistence that detailed reasons ought to have been supplied in the Impugned Order itself prior to the hearing was held to be without merit.

On the scope of Section 69A, the DHC held that the expression ‘information’, as defined under Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act, is to be construed expansively and includes images, voices, codes, computer programmes, software. Accordingly, an application or platform such as Telegram, being a compilation of codes, programmes, databases, and communication protocols, falls within the ambit of the provision. DHC therefore held that MeitY was empowered under Section 69A to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram in its entirety.

On proportionality, applying the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, DHC held that the measures pursued a legitimate objective of protecting examination integrity and maintaining public order, bore a rational nexus to that objective, and were necessary in the prevailing circumstances. Narrower, entity-specific interventions such as the takedown of individual channels and bots had repeatedly proved ineffective on account of the platform’s architecture, which lead to the rapid creation of mirror channels and the migration of subscribers. The temporary blocking of Telegram under the Impugned Order is operative only until June 22, 2026, while the disabling of the message-editing feature is confined to the period until June 30, 2026. The limited temporal scope of these measures demonstrates that they are narrowly tailored and confined to the period strictly necessary for securing the stated objective. Accordingly, DHC held that the temporary blocking of public access to Telegram could not be held to be disproportionate and dismissed the petition along with the pending application.

Link Here

The Bombay High Court grants leave to institute personality rights suit over AI-generated deepfakes

June 16, 2026: In Preity G. Zinta vs. Google LLC and Others (Leave Petition (L) No. 19882 of 2026), the Bombay High Court (BHC) granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to a renowned actress, film producer, and entrepreneur to institute a suit for injunction against 16 defendants. BHC held that where a plaintiff’s goodwill, reputation, persona, and features are situated within its jurisdiction and the offending material is also disseminated within such jurisdiction, part of the cause of action arises therein, even if the defendants are located outside the jurisdiction and the online dissemination is global.

Facts and background of the case

The petitioner, an Indian national who primarily resides and works in Mumbai, proposed to file a suit for injunction against the defendants, including Google LLC, alleging breach of her personality rights, copyright infringement, loss of goodwill and reputation, and violation of her moral rights under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The grievance arose from AI-generated deepfake videos, memes, manipulated images, AI-generated chatbot personas, and other digital content that were created, uploaded, disseminated, and made available to the public across various platforms. Since her goodwill, reputation, persona, and features are situated within the jurisdiction of BHC, and the offending material was disseminated both within Mumbai and worldwide, the petitioner contended that part of the cause of action had arisen within jurisdiction. However, as respondents 1 to 16 have their offices outside BHC’s jurisdiction and the offending activities are carried out on online platforms, part of the cause of action would also arise outside jurisdiction, necessitating leave under Clause XII for BHC to entertain, try and dispose the suit.

Judgment

BHC held that part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, since the petitioner’s goodwill, reputation, persona, and features are situated therein and the offending material was disseminated within Mumbai. Furthermore, BHC held that even though several defendants are located outside the jurisdiction and the dissemination is global on account of the online medium, the grant of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was justified. Leave was accordingly granted to enable the petitioner to institute the suit and the petition was allowed and disposed.

Link Here

Contributors to the newsletter

Avisha Gupta, Partner

Ambuj Sonal, Partner

Meghna Punjabi, Principal Associate

Shivangi Gupta, Associate

Kartik Thakkar, Associate

Khushi Shah, Trainee Associate

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.