Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 26 November 2025
Content A landmark law in 2013, it needs a spine in 2025 Decoding personality rights in the age of AI A landmark law in 2013, it needs a spine in 2025 Why is it in News? Chandigarh case where a college professor was terminated after ICC inquiry under POSH Act (2013) — rare instance of decisive, time-bound action. Complaint (Sept 2024) proved sexual harassment, signalling institutional accountability but also revealing systemic gaps in POSH implementation in higher-education spaces. Case has reignited debate on consent, power imbalance, evidence standards, timelines, and institutional hesitation in POSH processes. Relevance GS2 – Governance / Social Justice Workplace dignity and gender justice as part of India’s constitutional mandate (Art. 14, 15, 21). Institutional accountability: functioning of ICC, procedural fairness, grievance redressal. Gaps in regulatory architecture: timelines, coordination, evidentiary standards. GS2 – Polity / Law Reform POSH’s statutory limitations vs. evolving forms of harassment (emotional, digital, relational manipulation). Need for clearer definitions, informed consent, multi-institution coordination, and digital forensics. Revisiting malicious complaint clause and survivorship-friendly processes. GS1 – Society Power asymmetry in academia; hierarchical vulnerabilities in mentor–student relationships. Social stigma, delayed reporting, emotional fatigue as barriers to justice. Importance of gender sensitisation and behavioural-pattern recognition. Practice Question “Despite being a progressive law, the POSH Act, 2013 remains structurally weak in addressing modern forms of workplace harassment.” Analyse with reference to recent higher-education cases.(250 Words) Basics POSH Act, 2013 enacted to prevent, prohibit, and redress sexual harassment at the workplace; mandates Internal Complaints Committees (ICC). Applies to all workplaces, including universities, colleges, research institutions. Sexual harassment definition includes unwelcome physical, verbal, non-verbal conduct, quid pro quo, hostile environment. Timeline: complaint must be filed within 3 months (extendable by ICC). Conceptual Gaps in the Law Consent vs Informed Consent Act does not recognise “informed consent”; ignores emotional manipulation, authority-based persuasion, or information asymmetry. In campuses and workplaces, earlier “consent” becomes invalid once manipulation surfaces; Act fails to capture such relational exploitation. Emotional & Psychological Harassment Law primarily recognises explicit acts; emotional coercion, grooming, betrayal, and manipulation fall outside statutory scope. Educated perpetrators exploit what leaves “no evidence,” operating in legal grey zones. Procedural Flaws Exposed by the Case Three-Month Limitation Period Survivors experiencing coercion/manipulation take longer to recognise harassment. In universities (multi-year engagement), evidence or realisation surfaces later; strict timeline empowers perpetrators. Fear of ‘Malicious Complaint’ Clause Provision meant as a safeguard ends up intimidating genuine complainants, discouraging delayed reporting. Terminology Diluting Seriousness Calling accused as “respondent” softens gravity, unlike criminal law. Same conduct outside workplace is a cognisable offence; workplace label cannot trivialise harm. Investigative and Evidentiary Challenges Vague Definitions Burden of proof shifts heavily to women. Harassment usually occurs as a pattern, not an isolated act; ICCs often dismiss cases for lack of direct evidence. Need for Behavioural Assessment Tools Anonymous student feedback, corroborative testimonies, pattern recognition essential. ICC should read circumstantial evidence, social behaviour patterns, informal networks. Digital Evidence Gap Technology allows ephemeral messages, disappearing media, encrypted chats. ICCs lack technical training; POSH lacks protocols for digital forensics, leaving cases unproven despite real digital harassment. Inter-Institutional Blind Spot No mechanism to handle misconduct across multiple campuses, collaborations, conferences, visiting faculty roles. Repeat offenders evade accountability due to institutional silos; Act silent on sharing information or joint proceedings. Institutional Barriers Procedural delays, institutional hesitation, fear of controversy, and lack of sensitisation cause secondary victimisation. Women face emotional fatigue, reputational risks, power imbalance, especially in academia where mentor-student hierarchies shape vulnerability. Needed Reforms Extend or remove three-month limitation period. Recognise informed consent, emotional coercion, digital harassment within statutory definitions. Standardised digital evidence protocols and legal–technical training for ICC members. Enable inter-institutional coordination, especially for academia. Strengthen role clarity, confidentiality norms, survivor-centric processes. Replace chilling clauses (“malicious complaint”) with nuanced safeguards. Conclusion Chandigarh case is a rare success, but it exposes structural gaps: narrow definitions, procedural rigidity, digital blind spots, and institutional hesitancy. Without reforms, POSH remains strong on paper but weak in implementation, especially in universities where power asymmetry and delayed recognition are common. The Act needs clearer language, extended timelines, recognition of emotional/digital abuse, and stronger investigative frameworks to deliver consistent, empathetic justice. Decoding personality rights in the age of AI Why it is in News? Actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan have sued Google and YouTube in the Delhi High Court for hosting AI-generated deepfake videos depicting them in fabricated, often explicit scenarios. Petition alleges violation of personality rights (name, image, likeness, voice), reputational harm, commercial loss, and seeks future AI-training safeguards. Case spotlights India’s legal vacuum on AI-enabled impersonation and the rising challenge of deepfake abuse across platforms. Relevance GS2 – Governance / Regulation of Technology Rising legal vacuum in regulating AI-enabled impersonation, deepfakes, and identity misuse. Intermediary liability, safe-harbour limits, and absence of a dedicated Personality Rights framework. Constitutional dimensions under Article 21 (privacy, dignity). GS3 – Cybersecurity / Emerging Tech Deepfakes as threats to trust, authenticity, national information integrity. Need for AI watermarking, provenance logs, dataset consent, and high-risk classification. Comparative global models: EU (dignity-based), US (publicity right), China (strict synthetic content rules). GS1 – Society / Ethics Ethical issues: autonomy, consent, posthumous identity, commodification of persona. UNESCO’s rights-based framework for human-centric AI. Manipulation, misinformation, reputational harm, and psychological effects. Practice Question “The rise of deepfake technologies has exposed a critical gap between India’s constitutional guarantees of dignity and the absence of a statutory personality-rights regime.” Discuss with global comparisons.(250 Words) Personality Rights Protects control over a person’s name, image, likeness, voice, signature, gestures, persona. Origin: Common law doctrines of privacy, dignity, and unjust enrichment. Economic dimension: Prevents unauthorised commercial exploitation. Moral dimension: Upholds individual autonomy, honour, and human dignity. Enforcement mechanisms: tort law, passing off, privacy claims, IP principles (copyright/trademark analogies). Personality Rights Strain and AI era Deepfakes and generative models rapidly replicate faces/voices, making unauthorised impersonation easy and scalable. Blurs lines between authenticity vs. syntheticidentity, enabling: misinformation, harassment and explicit content, commercial misappropriation, erosion of public trust. AI models often train on scraped internet data without consent, leading to use of celebrity likeness in outputs. India’s Legal Position (Hybrid Model) 1. Constitutional Basis Personality rights derive from Article 21 (privacy, dignity); affirmed in Puttaswamy (2017). 2. Key Judicial Precedents Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022): court recognised personality rights and restrained unauthorised commercial use. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023): prohibited AI-generated recreations of Kapoor’s face/voice and misuse of “Jhakaas”. Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (2024): Bombay HC restrained AI cloning of his voice. 3. Statutory Gaps No codified personality rights statute. IT Act 2000 + 2021/2024 Intermediary Guidelines → address impersonation, harmful deepfakes, takedown duties. Enforcement issues: anonymity of creators, cross-border platforms, absence of explicit liability for AI training datasets, reactive takedown rather than preventive obligations. Comparative Global Framework United States (Property–Centric Model) “Right of Publicity”: heritable, assignable property right. Haelan Labs v. Topps (1953) established monetisation of identity. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act (2024): bans unauthorised AI use of voice/likeness. Character.AI sued for bots generating harmful outputs; First Amendment defence rejected. European Union (Dignity–Centric Model) GDPR requires consent for processing biometric data. EU AI Act (2024): deepfakes labelled high-risk → mandatory transparency, watermarking. China Beijing Internet Court (2024): synthetic voices must not mislead users. Voice actor awarded damages for AI-replicated voice sold without consent. Academic Proposals Westkamp et al. (2025): expand rights to include style, persona, aesthetic signatures. Scholars propose global harmonisation, high-risk categories, and explicit prohibitions on deceptive AI impersonation. Ethical Debates AI threatens autonomy, authorship, posthumous identity. UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2021) → human-centric, rights-based approach. Concerns: use of dead artists’ voices, non-consensual explicit deepfakes, AI becoming quasi-author, risks in granting AI legal personhood (Forrest 2023: human rights dilution). Key Problems No statutory definition of personality rights. No binding obligations for AI watermarking, provenance tracking, dataset consent. Weak intermediary liability and safe-harbour loopholes. Lack of cross-border cooperation given global AI models. Way Forward Enact a Personality Rights Act: define rights, remedies, licensing, posthumous scope. Mandate: watermarking and provenance logs for all synthetic content, compulsory consent for training datasets, strict liability for deceptive deepfakes, rapid takedown + penalties. Create an AI Ombudsman + high-risk AI registry. Global alignment using UNESCO standards. Public digital literacy on AI harms.