Law

The submission was made on behalf of Broadband India Forum before Justice Amit Bansal during the hearing of the copyright infringement suit by Asian News International (ANI) against OpenAI.

Broadband India Forum, a think tank working on the development of the broadband ecosystem, on Friday said that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution includes the right to receive information and AI tools like ChatGPT cannot be restrained from using media reports/original data to answer user queries.

The submission was made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before Justice Amit Bansal during the hearing of Asian News International's copyright infringement suit against OpenAI.

Opposing the grant of any interim injunction against ChatGPT, Sibal said people have a fundamental right to the best means of imparting and receiving information.

"The right to receive information is a specie of the right of freedom of speech, an expression guaranteed under Article 19, a citizen has a fundamental right to use the best means of imparting and receiving information. It is the citizens right that is being violated. You say that 'no you can't access what I put in public domain without any restrictions'," Sibal, who appeared for the think tank said.

ANI's suit claimed that OpenAI was using its original content to make money and to train ChatGPT to answer user queries. In its reply, OpenAI stated that copyright protection in news reporting is very narrow, since there exists a greater public interest in dissemination of information.

The Court has earlier heard many intervenors in the case, including the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) which accused OpenAI of infringing the rights of media organisations by training ChatGPT on the basis of online news reports.

Today, Sibal submitted that the application seeking interim injunction against ChatGPT cannot be allowed as facts about the working of Large Language Models (LLM) are not there before the Court.

"Politician gives a speech in 1980. News channel records it. Access is available. In 1992, he gives another speech. A speech to the contrary. Most people will not have access to it. LLM will answer by prompt. Data cannot be copyrighted. Injunction cannot be granted as facts are not before you," he said.

Sibal said the technology is still evolving and that Court must not injunct the change.

"The copyright law couldn't have envisioned that large language models could be conceived in this fashion and being used for the purposes of change. Change is inherent in every aspect of life. You can't injunct change," he said.

The senior counsel argued that the decision should be according to constitutional rights, even if it is a commercial dispute.

"Please have Article 19(2) of the Constitution. None of the exceptions apply. I am entitled under Article 19 to protect my right to access information. It is my fundamental right," he added.

He said that restricting the same will amount to violation of free speech under Article 19.

"The public has right to access. A person who sought that prompt has a fundamental right to find out about the contradiction. How will anyone research if someone has contradicted himself in a speech. If there is any law that restricts this right, it will be a violation of Article 19," he told the Court.

Sibal also contended that the mere act of storage would not infringe the provisions of the Copyright Act.

"The purpose of LLM is not to reproduce. The intent to store is to use the data. I must reproduce under Section 14 for copyright infringement. Act of storage is not an infringement. What do I store? A speech, a math formula, data on climate and reproduce it, is it a copyright if I use it for progress of science?," he submitted.

In his arguments, Sibal also reflected on the use of paywall by news organizations to regulate access to news on their sites.

"How do you stop the circulation of ideas? If you say, whatever I have on my channel, you can't even look at, you can restrict it. It is all commercialisation, gone are the days of freedom of speech. I want to read an article from Indian Express, I can't. It is the only vehicle of political discourse so essential to democracy," he submitted.

Sibal said there was an element of public interest in the promotion of LLMs because people can now have access to information very fast.

"Earlier we had to go to libraries, now we can get information in a jiffy. So much easier now, this should be supported. You can't stall progress. At this stage, granting any kind of injunction will destroy the very process of change which is inevitable."

The senior counsel also argued that what is involved in this matter is an issue of public policy.

"How different jurisdictions in the global community use AI in the context of their peculiar interests and concerns is a matter of policy. Different jurisdictions may use it differently. The matter of policy is really in the domain of government," he said.

At this point, Justice Bansal asked: "If the intent of the state is to encourage LLMs and use of artificial intelligence, what prevents the State from amending the copyright law?." Sibal said that the government might do so. Earlier, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar also argued for Broadband India Forum. He submitted that any injunction would cause irreparable harm as LLMs enable the public, particularly in India, to have access to wider information. The large language model helps a lawyer, may help a doctor, a student appearing for a UPSC exam, he added. "You can have transient storage. The LLM is accessing and integrating. Application for injunction should be dismissed. The Courts have held that in IPR matters, the nature of dispute may not be only between parties, it can have larger ramifications," Datar said. The next date of hearing in the matter is November 21. Today, the Court said another date for the hearing would fall sometime in January 2026. The suit was filed in November 2024.

The Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of an order of the Government on the basis of requirements of minimum necessary qualifications for a post of assistant teacher in a recognised junior high school.

As per the GO, candidates applying for the post of assistant teachers would need to have a graduation degree from a university recognized by the University Grants Commission, along with a teachers training course approved by the state government or the National Council for Teacher Education.

The observation came from a two-judge bench headed by Allahabad HC Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra while hearing a special appeal filed by the state government against the judgement dated September 24, 2024, reports PTI.

In the judgment in 2024, a single judge of Allahabad HC allowed the writ petition submitted by Yashank Khandelwal and nine others, and set aside clause 4 of the government decree dated September 9, the same year.

Clause 4 of the government order dated September 9, 2024, prescribes the minimum eligibility criteria to be satisfied for appointment to the post of assistant teacher in a recognized junior high school.

A writ petition was filed to direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners and such other candidates to seek admission to a two-year Diploma course known as DElEd conducted at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), based on their Intermediate Certificate Examination or an equivalent qualification.

It also aimed at quashing the impugned government order prescribing graduation as the eligibility criterion for admission to the two-year Basic Training Certificate course.

After hearing the parties, the division bench observed that a peruse of various rules and provisions shows that apparently at first instance, they relate to the appointment of assistant teachers in basic schools, where ‘training’ has been given due importance.

It further noted that even for a training course recognized by the government or any training qualification notified by NCTE to teach Classes I to VIII, the intent of the law is that only graduates are eligible for appointment. "Therefore, if the State Government in every Government Order right from 1998 till today has prescribed graduation as minimum qualification for taking admission in B.T.C./D.El.Ed. course, the same being in consonance with the Rules of 1981 and not said to be an arbitrary provision," added the Court. With all those observations, the single judge's order dated September 24, 2024 was set aside, and the respondents' writ petition was dismissed.