Explore the Daily Current Affairs 26 November 2025, relevant for UPSC exam. Download quick REVISION NOTES from our telegram channel – https://t.me/CivilMentorIAS.
POSH Act needs reforms
GS Paper 2 – Governance / Social Justice
Context: The article argues that POSH Act suffers from conceptual and operational flaws that hinder consistent justice, especially in academic institutions.
Key issues highlighted:
- The POSH Act recognises “consent” but not “informed consent”, ignoring manipulation, emotional coercion, and power imbalance.
- Emotional or psychological harassment not adequately recognised.
- 3-month limitation for filing complaints is unrealistic for survivors who take time to process coercive relationships.
- Vague definitions shift burden of proof to women; committees often want direct evidence, ignoring patterns of behaviour.
- No mechanism for inter-institutional complaints, allowing repeat offenders to escape accountability.
- Challenges in Evidence and ICC Functioning: Digital communication tools make evidence complex (e.g., disappearing messages, encrypted chats).
- ICCs often lack legal, gender-sensitisation and technical training.
Gender Justice and Constitutional Obligations:
Sexual harassment violates key constitutional rights of women:
- Article 14: Denial of equality due to unsafe and discriminatory workplace conditions.
- Article 15: Sexual harassment is sex-based discrimination; weak institutional responses reinforce this.
- Article 19(1)(g): Fear of harassment restricts women’s freedom to work and participate professionally.
- Article 21: Violates dignity, mental well-being, and the right to a safe environment.
The Vishaka (1997) judgment recognised sexual harassment as a constitutional violation and mandated robust institutional mechanisms (complaints committees, preventive measures).
The gaps in POSH implementation, like weak ICCs, narrow definitions, time limits, and inadequate recognition of emotional/digital abuse, show that Vishaka’s directives remain only partially implemented, undermining gender justice.
Mains practice Question:
Q1. The POSH Act, 2013 was a landmark law, but its implementation suffers from structural and conceptual gaps.” Discuss.
Personality Rights
GS Paper 2 – Governance, legal frameworks, digital rights, Right to privacy (Article 21). GS Paper 3 – Cybersecurity, deepfakes, AI regulation
Context: Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai filed a lawsuit against Google and YouTube for AI-generated deepfake videos that violate their personality rights.
What Are Personality Rights?
Personality rights are the rights an individual has over the commercial and personal use of their name, image, likeness, voice, signature, or any identifying feature.
Major Concerns:
- Deepfakes & Generative AI: AI can create fake videos, voice clones, explicit content, or false endorsements. Misuse harms reputation and can cause financial loss.
- Social Media & Viral Content: Unauthorised images of individuals spread quickly. Hard to trace or stop misuse globally.
- Online impersonation: Fake profiles, manipulated content, and unwanted association with brands or causes.
- Data protection concerns: Biometric features like facial structure or voice now carry commercial value.
Key Court Judgments:
- Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022): First strong recognition of celebrity personality rights.
- Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life (2023): Court banned AI use of his image/voice/catchphrase.
- Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (2024): Voice replication by AI banned.
Mains practice Question:
Q2. The rise of AI-generated deepfakes has exposed the inadequacy of India’s legal framework on personality rights.” Discuss.