Authored By: Anilkumar Ambalam S
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, Tamilnadu DR Ambedkar law University
Introduction
One of the AI’s most recent achievements is deepfake technology, an innovative technique used to create images or video with deep learning algorithms that can imitate an authentic likeness of a person.[1] Deepfake has had many positive uses in education, entertainment, healthcare, accessibility and is used in various other fields. However, it has also had a negative impact on society by misleading the public, harming reputations, facilitating financial frauds, electioneering, and invading privacy.[2]
The increased pervasiveness of AI-powered tools in recent times has made it extremely easy to create and disseminate deepfakes, with adverse consequences for not just politics and privacy but even the legal system itself. Recent incidents in India, which included the use of deepfake videos for distributing non-consensual content and impersonating celebrities, as well as speeches with altered messages and audio of politicians, has raised serious concerns. Several laws in India, such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, have attempted to provide some level of remedy by criminalizing acts that may cause harm through deepfakes.[3]
This article attempts to investigate if Indian law can control the crime of using deepfake. By reading through various relevant statues, constitutional rights, court verdicts and foreign policies, the study tries to identify the pros and cons of current law and suggest potential amendments that would benefit both the freedom of speech and the right to be free from false accusation and offense.[4]
Understanding Deepfakes
Deepfakes are media created or altered by artificial intelligence (AI) in order to portray a certain person’s image, speech, or actions that were fake, misleading, or not approved by the subject of the media piece. The word ‘deepfake’ comes from the words ‘deep learning’ and ‘fake,’ and it refers to how deep learning algorithms have advanced enough to be capable of creating realistic portrayals of people’s likenesses.[5] Unlike regular editing, deepfakes utilize complex and sophisticated algorithms to edit images, video or audio recordings, and other media in order to make them appear real, accurate, and legitimate. As such, deepfake technology has both made media editing and production much easier and more realistic while posing new threats and dangers to the credibility of media information and its sources.
The fundamental technology which makes deepfakes possible is known as GANs, or Generative Adversarial Networks. These are formed by two neural networks which work against each other, one generating an output and the other analysing it.[6] By training these networks to improve their performance, it becomes possible to produce realistic images and video which can mislead humans and computers alike. Other newer forms of AI, such as diffusion models and transformers, can also be used to create deepfakes of varying quality, and may be easier to use for those without technical expertise than GANs.[7]
Deepfakes have “legitimate uses” in “movies and television, education and historical reconstructions, health care, accessibility, and language translation.” However, they also have “negative implications,” such as “identity theft, financial fraud, cyberharassment, cyberstalking, defamation, voter suppression and election sabotage, and nonconsensual pornography,” which “erode trust in digital information and undermine society.[8]
Legal Challenges Posed by Deepfakes
The rise of deepfake technology presents new legal challenges that go beyond traditional cybercrimes. Its capacity to generate realistic yet fake images and videos can facilitate a wide range of malicious activities and threats to individuals and institutions, which may not always be easily addressed by the law.[9]
One of the most significant challenges of deepfakes involves a threat to the right to privacy. Such acts diminish the self-will and personality of a person and violate his or her informational privacy, which are protected by the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 21.[10]
Deepfakes also threaten the right to reputation since they can depict a person saying or doing something that they would not typically do or say. In addition, false information about a person is disseminated rapidly online, often irretrievably damaging their reputation and career. Although defamation laws can provide some relief from such attacks, this right violation is extremely challenging to mitigate, given that such information goes viral quickly.[11]
Another crucial aspect is the issue of identity theft and fraud. Fraudsters can use deepfake technology such as voice clones and manipulated videos to target public figures, businesspersons, or even friends and family in scamming attempts. As such crimes become rampant, they might become hard to prove because of the authenticity of such forgeries, which may present challenges to both individuals and law enforcement agencies.[12]
Besides, deepfake technologies can cause chaos, especially during critical events such as presidential elections. Moreover, deepfakes may implicate jurisdiction issues as the location of the scammer, victim, and social media moderator may vary, especially if the technology was developed abroad. The impacts of such adverse effects can be profound, considering the volume of information shared and consumed today.
Existing Legal Framework
India does not currently have specific legislation governing deepfakes or related to generative artificial intelligence. Rather, laws currently in place concerning deepfakes are derived from various criminal, cyber, data protection, and intermediary liability statutes.[13]
Information Technology Act, 2000
The Information Technology Act, 2000 is India’s primary law that addresses cybercrimes. Although it does not explicitly refer to deepfakes, multiple sections can be leveraged depending on the circumstances in which they are used. For instance, section 66C makes identity theft a punishable offense in cases where one’s electronic signature, password, or any other unique identifying information has been used without consent. On the other hand, section 66D deals with punishment for personation by means of computer resources or other communication devices.[14]
Similarly, Sections 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act, 2018 prohibit the publication or transmission of obscene and sexually explicit material in electronic form. In addition, Section 69A of the Information Technology Act allows the central government to order the blocking of any online content in certain circumstances, which could be applied to prevent the distribution of harmful deepfake content.[15]
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with criminal law remedies for acts that could be associated with deepfakes, which range from cheating, forgery, criminal intimidation, defamation, and offences relating to tampering with or providing false electronic records. In cases where deepfakes are being used to defraud or damage the reputation of an individual or organisation, the appropriate section of the BNS could be used to charge the accused.[16]
However, the BNS does not define the term “deepfake” or criminalize a particular kind of AI-generated synthetic media. This implies that, in order for law enforcers and judges to prosecute a particular kind of offense based on AI-generated synthetic media, they should rely on the already existing criminal offenses, which may not be enough to cover every possible application of such technology.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) enhances personal data protection by giving effect to the processing of data on the basis of consent and accountability. Deepfakes, which use consented or non-consented facial image data, voices, and personal information, can be regulated through the DPDP Act since it gives a legal framework for protecting personal data from unlawful processing.[17]
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 stipulate due diligence obligations for social media intermediaries, as well as digital platforms. Intermediaries must implement reasonable measures, including grievance redressal procedures and removal of unlawful material upon request.[18]
Despite these regulations, the Rules do not create a pervasive duty to detect, disclose, or prevent synthetic media created by AI, as a result of which harmful deepfake content tends to proliferate until it is acted upon.India’s legal framework offers limited protection against the harms caused by deepfakes by criminalizing and regulating the offences of fraud, defamation, privacy, cybercrime, etc., but the lack of a statutory definition, specific charges, and standardization of regulations shows how reactive the approach is, suggesting the need for legislation that would actively prevent deepfake misuse.
Judicial Approach Towards Deepfakes
Despite the Supreme Court of India still needing to rule on a deepfake-related case, it has already ruled on various issues that could serve as a guiding principle for the judicial system when dealing with deepfakes.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to privacy as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, thus recognising it as a fundamental right. In the case of Puttaswamy, the Court discussed in detail what constitutes privacy.[19] The Court’s findings in Puttaswamy can be applied to protect individuals from unauthorized use of their image, voice, face or other personal information for the creation of deepfakes.
Similarly, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to be ultra vires the Constitution as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech conferred under Article 19(1)(a). However, the Court upheld Section 69A and laid down the duties of online intermediaries in taking down prohibited content upon receipt of appropriate orders from the Court and thus, the restrictions under this section are also in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as the right to freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions if the content is injurious or affects the rights of others.[20]
The protection of reputation has also been recognised as an important constitutional value. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation and held that right to reputation is an integral part of the right to life contained in Article 21.[21]
Further, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that access to the Internet has become a “medium of communication” for the exercise of freedom of speech and expression as well as for trade and commerce. The court held that restrictions on such communication must be reasonable, that is satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.[22]
Comparative Analysis: Lessons from Foreign Jurisdictions
Due to the potential of deepfake technologies to cause harm, some jurisdictions have taken steps to adopt legal measures that explicitly address the risks posed by synthetic media and its impact on society.
European Union
The European Union (EU) has embraced the world’s broadest framework for regulating artificial intelligence. The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), 2024 is a regulatory framework which requires entities that develop and deploy artificial intelligence systems to classify them according to risk level and adhere to certain requirements.[23] In terms of deepfakes, the regulation necessitates disclosing or labelling AI-generated or manipulated content or media to ensure that its artificial nature is identifiable or apparent. In essence, the regulation aims to promote transparency, deter the spread of disinformation while enabling the use of deepfake technology in various fields, including education, research, and entertainment.
United States
Unlike the EU, the US does not have a unified law on deepfakes at a federal level. It tends to adopt measures on a state level and respond with sector-specific regulations or even individual cases. Some states have passed laws that criminalize the malicious use of deepfakes and have regulated the use of AI in elections and non-consensual pornography. The US also utilizes existing laws such as those on fraud, impersonation, copyrights, and defamation to prosecute those guilty of deepfake crimes.[24]
China
China has taken a stricter approach by adopting the Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services that came into force in 2023. This regulation requires deep synthesis technology providers to identify users, label AI content, and take steps to prevent the creation and distribution of unlawful content using synthetic media.[25] At the same time, China employs a more preventive approach by explicitly requiring technology companies to stop users from misusing deepfake media.
Lessons for India
The comparative analysis indicates that although different countries utilize various regulatory approaches for imposing control over the functions of AI, some similarities can be observed, including the requirements for transparency, responsibility of platforms, labels for content created by AI, and protection of the rights of victims. Indian laws do not cover such activities, only general criminal and cyber laws are applied in cases of disclosure of false information. Thus, it can be concluded that India needs to adopt some measures from foreign practices to ensure the security of its citizens and regulate the use of deepfakes technology in the country in accordance with the constitutionality of laws and development of technologies.[26]
Recommendation
Enact a Dedicated law on Deepfakes
India needs a comprehensive law that specifically targets deepfakes. The law should contain definitions and differentiations between legitimate and illegitimate uses of deepfakes as well as civil and criminal liability.[27]
Mandatory Labelling of AI Generated Content
AI generated content must be clearly labelled or watermarked to ensure openness and to facilitate the differentiation between genuine and artificial content
Strengthen Platform Accountability
Online intermediaries must be required to utilise detection technologies and respond to complaints and take down illegal deepfake content in a timely manner.[28]
Improve Digital Forensic Capacity
The Government should enhance digital forensic labs while offering specialized training courses to police, prosecutors, and judges in investigating AI crimes.
Promote Public Awareness and International Cooperation
Public awareness and international cooperation should be promoted in handling deepfake-related offenses and establishing global regulatory frameworks for AI crime prosecution.[29]
Conclusion
The rise of artificial intelligence introduced unprecedented opportunities for digital communication and created numerous legal challenges with the appearance of deepfake technology. Although deepfake technology can be used for beneficial purposes such as in education, healthcare, entertainment, or innovation, its potential for committing identity theft, scams, defamation, cyberstalking, election interference, and non-consensual distribution of intimate images is undeniable. Therefore, it can be concluded that the advancement of technology requires appropriate legal adjustments.
This article analysed the adequacy of India’s laws and concluded that although the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and various judicial precedents and international laws do offer remedies against several deepfake-related offences, none of them exclusively address deepfakes or offer adequate transparency, accountability and regulation.[30]
In conclusion, the current laws are completely inadequate to handle and prevent misuse of deepfakes. India needs to take action to create laws that will govern deepfakes, hold intermediaries responsible for hosting or distributing deepfake content accountable, impose labelling, watermarking and other disclosure obligations on them. India also needs to bolster digital forensic capabilities. By doing this India can reap the rewards of AI while mitigating the risks, ensuring that the rise of this powerful technology does not come at the expense of the rights enshrined in the Constitution.[31]
Reference(S):
Primary Sources
Legislation
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023 (India).
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023 (India).
Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India).
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E), Gazette of India, Feb. 25, 2021.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. (L).
Cases
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
Secondary Sources
Books
Ian J. Goodfellow et al., Generative Adversarial Nets, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 2672 (2014).
Natarajan Meghanathan, Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning for Decision Makers (CRC Press 2022).
Reports
OECD, OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems (2022).
UNESCO, Guidance for the Governance of Digital Platforms: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (UNESCO 2023).
World Economic Forum, The Global Risks Report 2025 (20th ed. 2025).
[1] Natarajan Meghanathan, Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning for Decision Makers (CRC Press 2022).
[2] UNESCO, Guidance for the Governance of Digital Platforms: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (UNESCO 2023).
[3] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, India; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, India; Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023, India.
[4]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
[5] Natarajan Meghanathan, Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning for Decision Makers (CRC Press 2022).
[6] Ian J. Goodfellow et al., Generative Adversarial Nets, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 2672 (2014).
[7] UNESCO, Guidance for the Governance of Digital Platforms: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (UNESCO 2023).
[8] World Economic Forum, The Global Risks Report 2025 (20th ed. 2025).
[9] UNESCO, Guidance for the Governance of Digital Platforms: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (UNESCO 2023).
[10] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[11] Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
[12] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, §§ 66C, 66D (India); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023 (India).
[13] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023 (India); Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023 (India
[14] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India) §§ 66C–66D.
[15] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India) §§ 67, 67A, 69A.
[16] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023 (India).
[17] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023 (India).
[18] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E) (Feb. 25, 2021).
[19] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[20] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
[21] Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
[22] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
[23] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. (L).
[24] National Conference of State Legislatures, 2025 Artificial Intelligence Legislation (2025).
[25] Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services (China), effective Jan. 10, 2023.
[26] OECD, OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems (2022).
[27] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. (L).
[28] UNESCO, Guidance for the Governance of Digital Platforms: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (UNESCO 2023).
[29] OECD, OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems (2022).
[30] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023 (India); Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023 (India).
[31] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. (L).
