Lawfully yours: Judicial authority cannot override constitutional limits, commanding CISF beyond mandated role

Some High Court judges have defended a single judge’s direction asking CISF personnel, deployed exclusively for court security, to execute a judicial directive outside court premises, after the State allegedly failed to comply with an order. Is such use of CISF legally justified ? What are the implications if this leads to confrontation between CISF and local police? Do High Court judges possess the authority to deploy or command forces to implement their orders, or maintain a separate enforcement mechanism ?

- R Sivakami, Pallikaranai, Chennai

The High Court judge’s direction is legally unsustainable. CISF is a central armed police force deployed for specific purposes, in this case, limited strictly to court premises security. Directing CISF personnel to execute orders outside that mandate is ultra vires. Article 144 of the Constitution requires all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court; no similar provision exists for High Courts. Even the Supreme Court exercises restraint in seeking armed force assistance. Any confrontation between CISF and local police would undermine constitutional command structures. Courts must rely on contempt powers or lawful executive processes, not command armed forces.

— Innovation cannot thrive by eroding economic rights of creators, fair compensation essential

There is increasing demand that AI developers compensate original creators and media organisations for content used to train artificial intelligence models. Given concerns over erosion of originality, independent thinking, and commercial exploitation of freely shared or open-source content, how does the Indian constitutional and legal framework support creators’ claims? Further, what legal mechanisms or regulations can require large language models and corporations to compensate content owners for material used in training, particularly when such content is monetised?

- N Sivandan, Anna Nagar, Chennai

Intellectual property cannot be appropriated by corporations without consent or compensation. Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution protect creators’ professional and property rights, which include intellectual labour. While copyright law allows limited fair use, large-scale use of copyrighted content to train commercial AI models exceeds such exceptions. When AI systems monetise this content, creators are entitled to compensation. The State must frame regulations ensuring transparency in training data, respect for licensing terms, and fair remuneration mechanisms. Innovation must be balanced with protecting creators’ economic rights to ensure sustainable and ethical AI development.