INDIA

1. Government notified Semicon 2.0 Scheme for Chip Ecosystem^[1]

Central Government notified the Semicon 2.0 Scheme (“Scheme”), with an outlay of INR 1,27,500 crore to support semiconductor design, manufacturing and related capabilities in India. The Scheme covers six areas, including chip design, fabrication, semiconductor equipment and materials, assembly and testing, research and development, and talent development. Eligible participants may access different forms of fiscal support, including seed funding and deployment-linked incentives for chip-design businesses, and capital support for fabrication and advanced packaging facilities.

The Scheme is relevant well beyond semiconductor manufacturing. Chips form the underlying infrastructure for AI systems, data centres, telecom networks, connected devices, automobiles, cloud infrastructure and consumer electronics. By supporting domestic design, fabrication, packaging and related supply chains, Semicon 2.0 seeks to reduce dependence on imported semiconductor capacity while creating greater domestic capability around technologies that increasingly power India’s digital economy.

For technology, electronics and hardware businesses, the Scheme may influence decisions around product design, sourcing, localisation and technology partnerships in India. Companies developing AI hardware, connected products or other semiconductor-dependent technologies should assess whether planned investments, intellectual property structures and manufacturing arrangements can be aligned with the incentives available under the Scheme.

2. SEBI introduced IT Resilience Index and revised Cyber Incident Reporting Framework

SEBI issued the Circular on IT Resilience Index for Market Infrastructure Institutions
(“ITRI Circular”)^[2] and the Circular on Alignment of SEBI’s Cyber Incident Reporting Portal with FIRE Format (“FIRE Circular”)^[3]. Together, the measures strengthen oversight of technology resilience and cyber incident management across the securities market.

Under the ITRI Circular, stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories will be assessed against defined resilience parameters relating to system availability, security, governance, continuity and monitoring. The framework also places emphasis on automated measurement and early identification of technology issues. Separately, the FIRE Circular aligns SEBI’s reporting process with the Financial Stability Board’s Format for Incident Reporting Exchange (“FIRE”), so that information relating to a cyber incident can be captured and updated in a more structured manner as the incident progresses.

The two measures are significant because they require regulated entities to demonstrate technology resilience through evidence and reporting, rather than relying only on internal policies. MIIs should be able to show how critical systems are monitored and restored, while other regulated entities should ensure that cyber incidents are consistently recorded, escalated and updated from detection through closure.

3. Copyright Office held AI cannot be recognised as an Author^[4]

The Copyright office considered an application for registration of an artwork created using DABUS, an artificial intelligence system. The application identified ‘DABUS’ as the author and Dr Stephen Thaler as the owner of the work. While examining the application under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Copyright office took the view that an AI system cannot itself be recognised as an author under the present statutory framework. For computer-generated works, authorship must ultimately be attributed to a legally recognised person responsible for causing the work to be created.

The application was refused because DABUS continued to be named as the author despite an opportunity to amend the filing. Copyright office also indicated that extending legal authorship to autonomous AI systems would require Parliament to change the law, rather than the Copyright Office expanding the meaning of “author” through interpretation.

The decision is important for businesses increasingly using generative AI to create designs, marketing material, software and other content. The key issue is not simply whether an AI-assisted output can attract copyright protection, but whether the business can identify and document the human involvement behind its creation. Clear internal records of who directed, selected or developed AI-generated content may therefore become important when establishing ownership and enforcing rights.

4. Parliament passed Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill^[5]

Parliament passed the Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026, which subsequently received Presidential assent and became the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 2026 (“BBEA”). BBEA replaces the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and updates the manner in which banking records may be produced before courts and other authorities, reflecting the shift from physical ledgers to electronically maintained records.

BBEA recognises bank records maintained in electronic form, including records stored through digital systems and cloud infrastructure, subject to prescribed certification requirements. Banks relying on such records will need to demonstrate the reliability of the relevant systems, the integrity of the data and the absence of unauthorised alteration. The framework also reduces the need for routine production of original physical books and personal appearance of bank officers in proceedings where the bank is not itself a party.

This legislation is significant from a technology and data-governance perspective because the evidentiary value of a bank’s records will increasingly depend on the reliability of the systems through which those records are created, stored and retrieved. Banks should therefore ensure that audit trails, access controls, logging, data-retention practices and cloud arrangements are capable of supporting the certifications required when digital records are produced in legal proceedings.

5. Cyber Security Regulations for Power Sector notified^[6]

The Central Electricity Authority notified the Central Electricity Authority (Cyber Security in Power Sector) Regulations, 2026 (“Cyber Security Regulations”) under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Cyber Security Regulations create a binding cybersecurity framework for entities across the power sector, covering both operational technology used for grid and power infrastructure and the information technology systems connected to business operations.

Covered entities are required to establish dedicated cybersecurity governance, including a 24×7 information security function and designated security leadership. The Cyber Security Regulations also places emphasis on segregation between operational and corporate networks, timely reporting of cybersecurity incidents, restrictions around remote access and localisation of specified operational and telemetry data within India.

The Cyber Security Regulations recognise that cyber risk in the power sector can directly affect physical infrastructure and continuity of essential services. Power-sector entities should therefore review IT–OT connectivity, third-party access, incident-response processes, data-hosting arrangements and vendor controls to ensure that cybersecurity requirements are embedded into day-to-day infrastructure management rather than addressed only through general IT policies.

6. Parliamentary Committee called for Faster Progress on Digital Competition Regulation ^[7]

Standing Committee on Finance (“Committee”) presented Action taken by the Government on the Observations/Recommendations contained in the Twenty-Fifth Report on ‘Evolving Role of Competition Commission of India in the Economy, particularly the Digital Landscape (“Report”) reviewing the Government’s progress on competition issues in digital markets. The Report reiterated support for a forward-looking regulatory framework for large digital platforms and urged the Government to advance the Draft Digital Competition Bill, 2024 (“Draft Bill”), alongside the existing Competition Act, 2002.

The Committee also highlighted the need to strengthen the CCI’s technical capabilities, including expertise in areas such as artificial intelligence and data science, and to improve coordination where competition, platform conduct and data-related concerns overlap. The areas flagged for closer attention include self-preferencing, bundling of digital services, algorithmic decision-making and the use of data by large platforms in ways that may affect market access for competitors.

This review highlights increasing regulatory momentum toward proactive, structural market rules rather than relying solely on lengthy investigations after-market harm occurs. Dominant tech platforms must prepare for heightened scrutiny over how they rank search results, bundle proprietary digital services, and leverage consumer data to prevent rival technology services from competing on an even playing field.

7. Delhi High Court granted stay against Streaming Websites ^[8]

The Delhi High Court considered a suit concerning 30 websites that were allegedly making copyrighted films and other video content available for streaming without permission. Since such websites can quickly reappear through mirror domains, redirects or slightly altered web addresses, the copyright owners sought an order that would cover not only the identified websites but also future variants used to continue the same activity.

Crucially, court granted interim relief against the identified websites. For subsequently discovered mirror or redirect sites, however, it required a controlled process rather than allowing intermediaries to make a final infringement determination on their own. Rights holders may flag such websites and provide supporting material, but the extension of the blocking order must ultimately remain subject to the court’s supervision.

The decision is relevant for digital media and streaming businesses because it recognises the speed at which piracy networks can migrate across domains, while preserving a judicial check on website blocking. It therefore supports more effective anti-piracy enforcement without turning internet service providers into the final arbiters of whether online content is infringing.

8. Calcutta High Court held In-room Hotel TV broadcasts may Require Separate Copyright Licence^[9]

The Calcutta High Court considered whether hotels require a separate copyright licence when television channels carrying protected music are made available in individual guest rooms. The dispute arose because hotels typically obtain ordinary television or cable subscriptions, while copyright owners argued that making such content available as part of a commercial hospitality service amounts to a separate use under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The court held that guest rooms form part of the hotel’s commercial establishment and that transmission of copyrighted content to televisions installed in those rooms may amount to “communication to the public”. On that basis, payment of regular television subscription charges would not, by itself, dispense with the requirement to obtain the relevant copyright licence. The Supreme Court has subsequently stayed the operation of the judgment while the challenge is pending.

The outcome will be important for hotels and other commercial accommodation providers using smart TVs, bundled entertainment services or in-room streaming systems. The final position may determine when content delivered to an individual guest remains private consumption and when its availability as part of a commercial service triggers an additional licensing obligation.

9. Gujarat High Court held RTI-certified Copies do not Automatically become Public Documents ^[10]

The Gujarat High Court considered the issue in a family property dispute where the plaintiffs sought to rely on two architect-issued completion certificates and a family partition agreement. Copies of these documents had been obtained from the Surat Municipal Corporation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the trial court had allowed them to be exhibited on the basis that they had come through a public authority.

The High Court held that the manner in which a document is obtained does not change its original character. A private document does not become a public document merely because a government authority holds a copy or furnishes it under the RTI process. A party seeking to rely on such material must still satisfy the applicable rules for secondary evidence and establish the document’s authenticity and execution.

The decision is relevant as litigation increasingly relies on scanned records, digital copies and documents retrieved from government databases. An official source may establish where a copy was obtained from, but it does not by itself prove the authenticity or evidentiary value of the underlying document.