Abstract
The emergence of deepfake technology—media created using artificial intelligence—poses a serious threat to individual privacy, individual reputation, national security, and social order. Deepfakes in India are being used more and more for impersonation, non-consensual pornography, disinformation, and cyber defamation. The current legal framework in India is dispersed and nonspecific, and victims of such deepfakes have little access to law. This study discusses Indian law on deepfakes, considers the difficulties of enforcement, and suggests legal and policy amendments required in regulating AI-generated synthetic media in the context of a digital democracy.
1.Introduction
Deepfakes are audio, video, or photo content created by artificial intelligence that can realistically replicate a person’s face, voice, or movements. Deepfakes utilize Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) to produce hyper-realistic duplicates. While the technology is of vast application in creativity and entertainment, its misuse has risen in India to generate fake information, impersonation, deepfakes pornography, and defamation.
Unlike other image manipulations, deepfakes are harder to detect and easier to share. This dilutes the right to privacy, dignity, and reputation—most significantly of women and public figures. However, Indian law still does not have “deepfakes” as a tangible crime, and therefore enforcement remains case-based and reactive.
Keywords:
Deepfake, synthetic media, cybercrime, Indian law, IT Act, BNS, privacy, consent, intermediary liability, defamation.
- Regulatory Environment in India
2.1. Information Technology Act, 2000
India’s primary cyber law, the IT Act, does not specifically mention or ban deepfakes. Nevertheless, certain provisions of the Act could be applied similarly:
Section 66C: Addresses identity theft using electronic signatures or photographs.
Section 66D: Deals with impersonation through communication devices.
Section 66E: Imposes fine for taking or sharing pictures violating privacy.
Section 67 and 67A: Pertains to obscenity or sexually explicit content in digital form.
Application of these rules might include deepfake pornography or impersonation, yet proving the media in question was manipulated—and harmed—is frequently a related legal and technical challenge.
Section 79 (Intermediary Guidelines): Provides conditional immunity to platforms when they remove illegal content on receiving actual knowledge. But it does not always include active monitoring or AI detection of deepfakes.
2.2. The Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
The IPC and, more recently, the BNS have exhaustive rules that indirectly cover the issue of deepfakes:
Section 356 of the BNS (earlier Section 499 IPC): Adresses criminal defamation, if any, in case of injury to reputation from deepfakes.
Section 354A, 354C, 354D, and 509 IPC: Punish harassment, voyeurism, stalking, abuse of indecent representation—most commonly applied in deepfake pornography cases or cyber harassment of women.
Section 505 IPC: Imprisonment for inciting hatred or causing public disturbance where deepfakes are used to spread false political speeches or communal hatred.
While these guidelines exercise supervision, none directly cover synthetic or AI-generated content, raising questions about enforceability.
2.3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
The DPDP Act categorizes biometric data, like face or voice data, as sensitive in nature. The Act requires personal data to be processed only on the explicit consent of the affected person. The Act does not consider, however, the synthetically created such information obtained from publicly available media, like social media sites, thus reducing its utility against misuse of deepfake technology in such a scenario.
- Enforcement Challenges
3.1. Lack of Legal Definition
India has not legalized deepfakes or synthetic media, and that limits accuracy in investigation and prosecution. Crimes are often squeezed into existing laws which are not tech-based.
3.2. Evidentiary Complexity
It entails expert forensic analysis, authentication of metadata, and, in certain cases, international cooperation to determine whether a video is AI-generated. Authentication of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is a complicated process if the source or the equipment is not produced.
3.3. Constrained Technical Proficiency
Few police stations have a forensic lab or training or equipment to examine content produced by AI. Few cybercrime units in Delhi, Hyderabad, and Mumbai have begun to address deepfakes up to this point.
3.4. Platform Non-Cooperation
Social media platforms are afforded intermediary protection so long as they have not been notified to remove illegal content. Existing law does not require such platforms to actively detect or classify deepfakes, nor is there a clear scheme for watermarking or indicating content created using artificial intelligence.
- Social Harm and Gendered Impacts
Vulnerable women and women are disproportionately targeted. Deepfakes as pornography are now weapons of revenge, blackmail, and defamation. Victims are silenced and discouraged from reporting. There are remedies under sexual harassment and cyberstalking law, but enforcement lags behind and redress mechanisms are not survivor-led.
Additionally, deepfakes used in political campaign propaganda or inciting communal hatred can destabilize democratic institutions and public peace. With more elections being fought online, bulk deception by faked videos is a national security issue.
- Judicial Trends and Developments
Indian courts have started taking cognizance of the growing popularity of deepfakes in recent civil defamation cases and election-related disinformation. Emergency orders of removal and temporary restraining orders have been granted. These attempts have been largely a reactive trend, which is generally favorable to public figures or political parties. Ordinary citizens find it more difficult to get relief under the law.
In 2024, the Supreme Court, in a PIL on synthetic pornography, placed statutory clarity at the forefront and asked Parliament to think about enacting laws on harms based on AI.
- Comparative Legal Developments
China requires that all deepfakes be labeled and marked to denote their synthetic nature.
The European Union, in the enforcement of the Digital Services Act, requires platforms to remove immediately any manipulative or dangerous content.
In the US, a majority of states have codified laws against non-consensual deepfake pornography and political deepfakes, while federal laws such as the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act are pending.
India is behind in development, having no technical regulations and legal classifications for synthetic media.
- Recommendations
There needs to be a defined legal definition so that harmless and harmful synthetic media can be distinguished. This can be achieved either by amending the IT Act or the BNS.
Criminalize Non-Consensual Deepfakes The law should criminalize:
Deepfakes as sexual harassment or abuse.
Impersonation of candidates or public officers.
Fake content inflicting reputational or emotional damage.
Mandate Watermarking and AI Disclosure
Platforms and AI programmes should include traceable watermarks and reveal whether content is AI generated. Synthetic origin should be tagged by metadata.
- Conclusion
Deepfakes pose a new threat to the rights of citizens and the stability of democracy in India. While there are half-baked solutions under cyber and criminal laws, the absence of one such law is hindering enforcement, resulting in undue delay in justice, and is not capable of preventing misuse. India needs to move quickly to enact AI-aware laws to protect citizens, ensure consent, promote digital accountability, and build immunity against future threats in the synthetic media world.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Kondala Phani Priya
