Sci-Tech · 7 Aug 2026

IT Rules intermediary liability deepfake

With reference to the case of Rafikul Biswas, consider the following statements:

  1. Under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proving citizenship rests on the individual, not the state.
  2. The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Foreigners Regional Registration Office had no jurisdiction over an Indian citizen.
  3. Biswas's Indian citizenship was certified by West Bengal police and a Block Development Officer within months of his detention, in 2025 itself.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A1 and 2 only
B2 and 3 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Tests precise understanding of the legal threshold triggering intermediary obligations, distinguishing an existing reactive duty from a proactive one that does not currently exist in law.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: Bombay HC Orders Meta, Google to Pull Gadkari Deepfakes - And Exposes India's Reactive Takedown Regime
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 7 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Bombay High Court directed Meta, Google and X to take down AI-generated deepfake videos falsely linking Union Minister Nitin Gadkari to corruption, while flagging the absence of a proactive takedown mechanism in India's intermediary framework.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether candidates understand the precise legal threshold ("actual knowledge") that triggers intermediary obligations, rather than assuming a stronger, proactive detection duty that does not currently exist in law.

Prelims summary

The IT Rules, 2021 impose a reactive, notice-and-takedown obligation on intermediaries triggered by "actual knowledge" (court/government order), not a proactive pre-upload detection duty - a gap the Gadkari deepfake case exposed.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.