AI in Indian Elections: Deepfakes Disinformation and the Challenge to Electoral Integrity

Authored By: Swati Singh

Abhinav Education Society's Law College, Pune

Introduction

Begin by placing the subject in a current, real-world context, such as how artificial intelligence (AI)-generated videos and synthetic media appeared in campaign materials for the Indian. General election of 2024. Describe the significance of this: Elections must be fair and transparent in a democracy, and new technologies like generative AI present additional risks by influencing voter perception, disseminating false information, and eroding confidence.

Give a brief overview of the laws and the constitution: Mention how laws like the Representation of the People Act of 1951, the Election Commission of India’s function under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution, and the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 provide a framework for online content that is both relevant and technology-neutral.

Put a thesis statement or goal at the end of the introduction, such as:

“This article aims to assess the effectiveness of current legal and regulatory frameworks, propose solutions to ensure fair elections in the era of generative AI, and investigate how AI-generated deepfakes and disinformation threaten electoral integrity in India.”

Research Methodology

Primary legislative texts like the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 (DPDP Act) are among the data sources used in this study. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has also released policy guidelines regarding the use of synthetic media and disinformation in election campaigns. Furthermore, the study makes use of pertinent case law, academic publications, and empirical reports on AI-driven deepfakes and disinformation in the context of the Indian election.
Three approaches are used: doctrinal (examining the wording and structure of laws and court rulings), analytical (finding legal voids, ambiguities, and real-world enforcement issues), and comparative (examining the regulations of AI and election-related synthetic content in other democratic jurisdictions to learn from them).
In addition to discussing how domestic law addresses AI-generated content in elections, the scope of the study is centered on the Indian legal and electoral system. International best practices are also incorporated to offer context, benchmark regulatory responses, and identify potential reform avenues.

Main Body

Legal Framework

Statutes/Constitutional Provisions: Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech & expression; Article 324 (ECI’s power for free & fair elections).
Relevant election law: Representation of the People Act, 1951 (and related rules) governing election conduct.
Technology/online content law: IT Act, 2000 (e.g., Sections 66C, 66D on identity theft/impersonation) and IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (including forbidding “misleading or false information” and “impersonation”).
Data protection law: DPDP Act, 2023 – because AI uses personal data for modelling, profiling, micro-targeting.
ECI guidelines on synthetic/AI content: For example the advisory dated 16 Jan 2025 by ECI to political parties: “labelling synthetic/AI generated content used by political parties” during campaign.

Regulatory and Judicial Interpretation and Practice

Examine how the ECI’s guidelines acknowledge the danger of manipulated media. For instance, the ECI stated that “manipulated, distorted, edited content” on social media can unjustly influence voter opinion.
Talk about recent reports about the use of deepfakes in Indian elections, such as the millions of AI-generated calls and videos, cloned voices, and superimposed faces (see the Wired article).
Emphasize the regulatory actions: Intermediaries are reminded by government advisories to eliminate deepfakes and synthetic media.
Examine any case studies or litigation that may be available, though they may be few, and demonstrate the application of current laws.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Challenges & Gaps

- India does not yet have a specific deepfake law; while cybercrime and IT laws are applicable, they do not address AI or election manipulation.
- Enforcement bottlenecks include platform accountability origin tracking, and deepfake detection.
- Problem of free speech vs. regulation: if laws are too general, there is a chance that political speech will be suppressed or overregulated.
- Inequitable regulation, such as non-binding guidelines and a lack of resources for fact-checking.

Comparative view points

- Compare India’s strategy with that of other democracies: international policy papers on deepfake regulation present various models (labeling, criminalizing, platform accountability).
- What can India learn about media literacy, algorithmic audits, platform obligations, and AI transparency?

Impact in the real world

- impact on voter confidence, the dissemination of false information, and the “arms race” of synthetic media. For instance, the trend is evident even though there was no catastrophic disruption in 2024.

RECENT DEVELPMENT

- MeitY issued a directive to all digital intermediaries on December 26, 2023, asking them to prevent the misuse of platforms for disinformation, including AI-generated “deepfake” content, and to strictly abide by the due diligence requirements under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules). In addition to requiring intermediaries to label unreliable or under-tested AI models, MeitY issued a revised advisory on March 15, 2024, which superseded an earlier version on March 1. The advisory also required intermediaries to ensure that any AI-driven content did not threaten public order or electoral integrity and to comply with existing laws, including the IT Act.
- You would begin by pointing out that the ECI has warned about the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and synthetic content in election campaigns, saying that it “can appear real, mislead voters, and distort the electoral process, posing a serious challenge to transparency and trust.” You then go on to discuss its January 16, 2025, advisory (as well as previous May 6, 2024, guidelines) on social media ethics and how to identify artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content. As required by Article 324 of the Constitution, the advisory instructs all parties to adhere strictly to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and to include a clear disclosure label on any AI-generated or modified image, audio, or video used in campaigning. Additionally, the advisory holds campaign teams, candidates, and political parties responsible for adherence.
- The need for a new law that targets AI-generated deepfakes in elections is a topic of increasing discussion in India. While existing laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 address online harms, experts contend that they are not specifically designed to handle the complexity and scope of generative AI threats in electoral contexts. The government has stated that it is thinking about enacting new laws or amending existing ones, with a focus on labeling synthetic content and increasing platform accountability.
- A draft amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 was proposed by India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) in October 2025. It would mandate that online platforms and content creators explicitly identify content created or altered by artificial intelligence as “synthetic” or “AI-generated.” The proposal aims to embed metadata/identifier traceability, defines such content broadly, and requires label visibility (taking up at least 10% of the screen area for visuals or the first 10% of an audio clip).

SUGGESTION

Introduce a specific law or amendment that focuses on deepfakes and AI-generated political content, with precise definitions and penalties.
Transparency mandate: political parties and campaigns must label content produced by artificial intelligence (AI) and disclose the use of AI tools, algorithms, and data sources.
Increase platform accountability by requiring intermediaries to identify, flag, and eliminate deepfakes and by enforcing audit requirements and transparency reports.
Invest in technology and fact-checking by creating detection tools and voter media literacy initiatives.
Balance free speech by allowing for parody and satire while maintaining protections. You mentioned adding another heading in place of the main body highlight.
Adopt comparative best practices (such as the EU’s AI Act) and promote algorithmic audits and independent oversight (such as an AI governance body).
The judiciary and election regulators’ roles include enabling the ECI to keep an eye on campaigns using synthetic media, setting deadlines for removal, issuing legally binding guidelines, and coordinating with platforms.
Public education: encourage voters to practice verification and increase their knowledge of deepfakes.

CONCLUSION

Deepfakes, or artificial intelligence-generated synthetic media, are a major threat to India’s electoral integrity because they undermine voter trust, fairness, and accurate information. Significant regulatory gaps still exist in terms of specific standards for AI in elections, despite the fact that India currently has laws (the IT Act, the DPDP Act, and the ECI guidelines) that address some aspects of the issue. A strong, multifaceted strategy is urgently needed, as the 2024 elections serve as a wake-up call. End on a strong note: the success of Indian democracy in the digital age hinges on our ability to both harness AI’s advantages (for engagement and outreach) and prevent its abuse — for free, fair, and transparent elections

REFERENCE(S):