DPDP Bill 2023 A Comparative Analysis
Introduction
THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2022 Released for Public Consultation on November 18, 2022THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2023Tabled at LokSabha on August 03. 2023Personal data may be processed only for a lawful purpose for which an individual has given consent. Consent may be deemed in certain cases.The 2023 bill imposes reasonable obligations on data fiduciaries and data processors to safeguard digital personal data.There is a Data Protection Board under the 2022 bill to deal with the non-compliance of the Act.Under the 2023 bill, there is the Establishment of a new Data Protection Board which will ensure compliance, remedies and penalties.
Under the new bill, the Board has been entrusted with the power of a civil court, such as the power to take cognisance in response to personal data breaches, investigate complaints, imposing penalties. Additionally, the Board can issue directions to ensure compliance with the act.The 2022 Bill grants certain rights to individuals, such as the right to obtain information, seek correction and erasure, and grievance redressal.The 2023 bill also grants More Rights to Individuals and establishes a balance between user protection and growing innovations. The bill creates a transparent and accountable data governance framework by giving more rights to individuals. In the 2023 bill, there is an Incorporation of Business-friendly provisions by removing criminal penalties for non-compliance and facilitating international data transfers.
The new 2023 bill balances out fundamental privacy rights and puts reasonable limitations on those rights.Under the 2022 bill, Personal data can be processed for a lawful purpose for which an individual has given his consent. And there was a concept of deemed consent.The new data protection board will carefully examine the instance of non-compliance by imposing penalties on non-compiler.The bill does not provide any express clarity in regards to compensation to be granted to the Data Principal in case of a Data Breach.Under 2023 Deemed consent is there in its new form as ‘Legitimate Users’.The 2022 bill allowed the transfer of personal data to locations notified by the government.There is an introduction of the negative list, which restricts cross-data transfer.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In the vast, cosmic-like expanse of international relations, a sphere marked by the gravitational pull of geopolitical interests, a singular issue has emerged, casting a long shadow over the fabric of Indo-Canadian diplomacy. It is a narrative spun from an intricate loom, interlacing the yarns of espionage and political machinations, shadowboxing with the transient, yet potent, specter of state-sanctioned violence. The recent controversy undulating across this geopolitical landscape owes its origins to the circulation of claims which the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) vehemently dismisses as a distorted tapestry of misinformation—a phantasmagoric fable divorced from reality.
This maelstrom of contention orbits around the alleged existence of a 'secret memo', a document reportedly dispatched with stealth from the helm of the Indian government to its consulates peppered across the vast North American continent. This mysterious communique, assuming its spectral presence within the report, was described as a directive catalyzing a 'sophisticated crackdown scheme' against specific Sikh diaspora organizations. A proclamation that MEA has repudiated with adamantine certainty, branding the report as a meticulously fabricated fiction.
THE MEA Stance
The official statement from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) emerged as a paragon of clarity cutting through the dense fog of accusations, 'We strongly assert that such reports are fake and emphatically concocted. The referenced memo is non-existent. This narrative is a chapter in the protracted saga of a disinformation campaign aimed against India.' The outlet responsible for airing this contentious story, as per the Indian authorities, has a historical penchant for circulating narratives aligned with the interests of rival intelligence agencies, particularly those associated with Pakistani strategic circles—a claim infusing yet another complex layer to the situation at hand.
The report that catapulted itself onto the stage with the force of an untamed tempest insists the 'secret memo' was decked with several names—all belonging to individuals under the hawk-like gaze of Indian intelligence.
The Plague of Disinformation
The profoundly intricate confluence of diplomacy is one that commands grace, poise, and an acute sense of balance—nations effortlessly tip-toeing around sensitivities, proffering reciprocity and an equitable stance within the grand ballroom of international affairs. Hence, when S. Jaishankar, India's Minister of External Affairs, found himself fielding inquiries on the perceived inconsistent treatment afforded to Canada compared to the US—despite similar claims emanating from both—his response was the embodiment of diplomatic discretion: 'As far as Canada is concerned, there was a glaring absence of specific evidence or inputs provided to us. The robust question of equitable treatment between two nations, where only one has furnished substantive input and the other has not, is naturally unmerited.'
The articulation from the Ministry's spokesperson, Arindam Bagchi, further solidified India's stance. He calls into question the credibility of The Intercept—the publication that initially disseminated the report—accusing it of acting as a vessel for 'invented narratives' propagated under the auspices of Pakistani intelligence interests.
Conclusion
In the grand theater of international politics, the distinction between reality and deception is frequently obscured by the heavy drapes of secrecy and diplomatic guile. The persistent denial by the Indian government of any 'secret memo' serves as a critical reminder of the blurred lines between narrative and counter-narrative in the global concert of power and persuasion. As observant spectators within the arena of world politics, we are endowed with the unenviable task of untangling the convoluted web of claims and counterclaims, hoping to uncover the enduring truths that linger therein. In this domain of authentic and imaginary tales, the only unwavering certainty is the persistent rhythm of diplomatic interplay and the subtle shadows it casts upon the international stage. The Ministry of External Affairs fact-checked a claim on the secret memo, rubbishing it as fake and fabricated. The government has said there is a deliberate disinformation campaign that has been on against India.
References
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mea-denies-report-it-issued-secret-memo-on-nijjar-to-missions/articleshow/105884217.cms?from=mdr
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-denies-secret-memo-against-nijjar-report-peddled-by-pak-intelligence-101702229753576.html
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media showing what appears to be a military facility coming under heavy aerial bombardment. Soldiers can be seen running for cover as explosions occur, followed by thick plumes of smoke rising from the site. Users sharing the clip claim that tensions in the Middle East have escalated once again and that the United States has launched fresh strikes on Iranian-linked military positions. CyberPeace Research Wing's research found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the circulating video is AI-generated and has no connection with the ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran.
Claim
An Instagram user shared the video claiming that fresh US strikes on Iranian-linked targets had significantly escalated the situation in the Middle East.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZeaatFNv2E/?igsh=aWRvaTZvNTV2aDR3
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZeaatFNv2E/?igsh=aWRvaTZvNTV2aDR3
Fact Check
We extracted several keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. The search did not lead to any credible news reports or verified sources related to the footage. We then closely examined the video and observed several visual inconsistencies. In the opening frames, the soldiers, military vehicles, and surrounding objects display unnatural shapes and distortions—artifacts commonly associated with AI-generated content. In the next stage of our research, we analysed the clip using the AI detection tool Sightengine. The analysis indicated that the video is approximately 66 per cent AI-generated, further supporting our findings that the footage is not authentic.
Another analysis of the recording using the DetectVideo AI tool found a 72 per cent probability that it was generated using artificial intelligence (AI).
Finally, we searched for recent developments related to the US-Iran tensions using relevant keywords on Google. During the search, we found an NDTV report published on July 9, 2026. The report explains that despite ongoing diplomatic engagement, tensions between the United States and Iran continue to persist due to decades-old political, strategic, and geopolitical disputes. It discusses why incidents of military escalation continue to occur despite repeated attempts at dialogue and de-escalation.
https://ndtv.in/world-news/us-iran-conflict-explained-why-peace-remains-so-elusive-11747960
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral video is not genuine. It is an AI-generated video being circulated with a false claim linking it to recent US military strikes on Iran. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the video depicts any real incident connected to the current US-Iran conflict.
Introduction
"Artificial Intelligence may be the new charlatan in town"
There is something almost wonderfully Indian about our current relationship with artificial intelligence. We are simultaneously afraid of it, fascinated by it, regulating it, funding it, using it and occasionally asking it to write the regulation meant to control it. In contrast, artificial intelligence seems to have figured out the oldest trick in the book: create an issue and then figure out how to solve it. Both the deepfake and the deepfake detector can be produced by it. It has the ability to both generate and detect false information. It can both authenticate and mimic your voice. It can create a fake image and determine if it is fake. The machine ,in other words, is increasingly becoming both the burglar and the security system. We now refer to this as innovation. Perhaps nothing better captures this peculiar moment than India’s most recent regulatory actions. The government has strengthened regulations pertaining to synthetic content such as requiring labelling and expediting the removal of illegal AI-generated information. After a legitimate government or court order, platforms are expected to take action within three hours, significantly reducing the removal window for some content. It took years for the internet to become ubiquitous. There are now three hours for the law to become transitory. This is the first great paradox of AI governance. Technology operates at the speed of creation. Law operates at the speed of procedure. The citizen is seated between the two.
The Age of the Digital Double
Indian courts are already dealing with this issue in more tangible ways. Cricket player Yuvraj Singh recently received relief from the Delhi High Court in a personality-rights case involving deepfakes created by AI and unlawful use of his identity. Courts have intervened against AI-generated and modified content in similar cases involving other public individuals. As a result, the law faces an odd dilemma: What exactly belongs to a person? In the past, humans used comparatively stable identifiers to understand identity, such as a name, portrait, signature, or voice. That simplicity has been disrupted by AI. You can now detach your face from your body. You may separate your throat from your voice. It is possible to distinguish between your emotions and your expressions. It is possible to fabricate your political beliefs without engaging in politics. The legitimacy of a person's existence is being requested to be protected by the law, not just their property which is a far more difficult issue.
When Artificial Intelligence Enters the Courtroom
The irony becomes richer when AI enters the courtroom itself. Courts are creating guidelines for the use of AI in the courtroom, just as they are being challenged to decide what happens when AI creates reality outside of it. Human primacy, accountability, transparency, data protection and judicial independence are highlighted in the Supreme Court’s proposed rules on the use of AI in courts. After all, there is one situation in which the justification that “the AI said so” should never be accepted. A hallucinated judgment is more than just a mistake in technology. It may turn into a mistake of authority in a legal system. A precedent can be confidently created by a machine. It can be cited with confidence by a lawyer and maybe then brought before a court for consideration. All of a sudden, we have created a flawless little bureaucratic ecology where everyone has been duped despite no one's intention to do so. It's not inevitable that machines will turn malevolent, but rather that people will grow unduly reliant on machines that seem authoritative.
The Great AI Contradiction
We asked, "What can AI do?" for years.What can AI do for us, we then enquired? We are starting to wonder what AI might do to humans. The following query ought to be more challenging: When it does, who is at fault? Because AI systems don't cleanly fit into the legal frames we inherited, that question becomes very challenging. Developers, model providers, data providers, deployers, platforms, and end users are among them. There may occasionally be a middleman. There is a victim occasionally. Surprisingly, there can occasionally be multiple roles at once. This point is made in a recent working paper on AI and consumer rights in India: while current consumer protection laws may apply to AI harms, the conventional division of accountability among manufacturers, sellers, and service providers becomes challenging when AI systems involve a much more dispersed value chain.
The Misunderstanding on AI’s Intelligence
This is the point at which our sense for policy sometimes fails. We are concerned that AI will develop superintelligence. The more imminent threat can be much less dramatic. It is not necessary for AI to surpass human intelligence in order to wreak great harm. All it needs to do is become more convincing, quicker, and less expensive than human verification. Artificial general intelligence is not necessary for a fraudster to con an elderly person. A supercomputer is not necessary for a political manipulator to create a candidate's voice. A stalker can create an intimate deepfake without being conscious. A pupil can file a hallucinated case citation without the assistance of a robot attorney. Ordinary human wrongdoing magnified by incredible technical magnitude is what it is.
The Real Test of AI Governance
The number of standards we create, the number of committees we form, or the number of compliance boxes platforms check will not ultimately determine the success of AI regulation. Something considerably simpler will be used to measure it. Can the legal system advise a regular citizen where to go, what to do, and who will be held accountable when an AI system impersonates, defrauds, surveils, manipulates, or denies them a service?
The presence of accountability following failure, not the absence of failure.
Sometimes the most advanced piece of technology in the room is still an old-fashioned institution: a law that works, a regulator that responds, a court that understands the technology and a human being willing to take responsibility. Because if AI is going to be both the fire and the fire extinguisher, we should at least make sure that someone other than the machine owns the building.
References
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/government-tightens-deepfake-rules-mandates-ai-content-labels-and-three-hour-takedown-timeline/articleshow/133011656.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com&from=mdr
- https://theleaflet.in/law-and-technology/explained-the-supreme-court-of-indias-draft-regulations-for-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-2026
- https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/yuvraj-singh-personality-rights-ai-deepfakes-delhi-high-court/
