Authored By: Geetanjali Dikshit
Modi Law College, Kota
Abstract
In the era of advancement, which has led to vast challenges related to legal, technological, and policy issues. In Indian society, everyone is facing harm under deepfake, which exists in criminal, cyber laws, etc, where every central agency and courts are responding. After making numerous efforts, a significant gap remains: there are no dedicated statutes to regulate all these synthetic substances, which leads to evidentiary issues, complications in investigations, and prosecutions. Deepfakes have created a risk to free expression, which makes it uneasy for people to express their views; besides doing this, the urgent need is to address these harms, which include defamation, fraud, and sexual exploitation. So, this article will address the legal facts, examine caselaws, and identify gaps in the jurisdiction, as well as comparative analysis with other countries, and other such recommendations which may help people to address these serious issues.
Introduction
As we heard in November 2023, a deepfake case Of actress Rashmika Mandanna, which had shaken India, in which a video clip went viral, where everyone believed that it was her, after confirmation from experts, it was confirmed that the viral video was generated by AI. This incident has created national outrage and has raised concerns: if a celebrity can be trapped in it so easily, then what will happen to ordinary people? Soon after this case, many other manipulative videos had gone viral, in which many of the actors and actresses suffered, and others were more disturbing than the last one.
Is deepfake limited only to celebrities or ordinary people?
The answer is NO. Recently, the Indore police registered an FIR. Of deepfake speech of a political leader, in which the deepfake had falsely portrayed the political leader himself as making proactive statements. The video went viral as an expressway in an hour, which provoked the citizens of Indore. It’s not restricted in India, as it has been seen in UK political campaigns, which resulted in a collapse because the video went viral on the day before the voting.
As we have discussed all these cases, we can see now that deepfakes are no longer an experiment but a way to commit crimes like blackmailing, harassment, political manipulations, etc. It raises concerns that; Is really India’s current laws strong enough to protect its citizens from deepfakes in the world?
This article gives an insight into raised concerns of indian citizens, whether India’s legal system is prepared to deal with “Deepfakes” or not. And it will also discuss some major reforms that are needed before the next video becomes more dangerous for us nationally or worldwide.
What is Deepfake?
Deepfake refers to the synthetic video, audio, images, etc, which are altered and produced by using AI and Machine Learning ML methods, giving a real appearance of fake videos, images. To get a better understanding, take a case which we have mentioned earlier Indore case, in which the political leader has not used such proactive speech, which went viral and provoked citizens, leading to the defaming of the leader for such a video.
What do you think about why Deepfakes matter so much?
This is because Deepfakes not only spread manipulated video with consent, but they also cause defamation, produce censual intimate images, manipulate elections, and commit fraud like video-based crimes or scams. It not only threatens a person, political leaders, or actors and actresses, but it also threatens national security.
Recent studies and facts show that the video of deepfake incidents has increased, where many industries and consultancy surveys showing that from 2023 to 2024Indian cases have arisen around 280% in the areas of crypto(217%), consulting(138%), and mostly in iGaming (1520%), and there are many more areas of industry. All these trends show concerns to make an urgent policy response to control the rapid increase in the growth of deepfake cases. There are many laws already in indian jurisdiction which are used to address all these harms caused by deepfakes, which we will discuss in another part of this article.
India’s Existing Legal Initiatives
India has a wide approach to address the causes of deepfakes with complex existing laws and orders. All these legislative framework not only deals with one aspect of deepfakes but also deal with distinct aspects of deepfake-related misconduct. There are various legislative frameworks for it, but the primary legislative frameworks are the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, & other specific sector regulations are also there. Let us take a view of all these frameworks in brief.
Information Technology Act, 2000
It is a cornerstone of India’s cybercrime legislation. There are significant provisions that address the harms caused by deepfakes, which are as follows:
Section 66D Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource, cheats by personating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. This section criminalises the person if he/she cheat a person by using a computer.
Section 66E of the IT Act, Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.
This section criminalises the person for the offence of capturing an image and publishing it without his/her consent.
Another rule was also introduced in 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Code) in the IT Act, which has imposed obligations on digital and social media platforms to exercise due diligence so that they can prevent the dissemination of harmful content, in which it includes deepfake cases.
IPC 1860, & Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
In 2023, a new legal framework, the BNS, was introduced to address deepfake offences, replacing the IPC, 1860. The significant provisions related to deepfake cases are as follows:
Section 469, which deals with forgery that is used to harm the reputation of a person, in which deepfakes are used to damage the reputation.
Section 500 addresses criminal defamation, which happens when deepfakes are used to publish defamatory content about a person.
Section 354C was introduced in 2013 under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013. This act deals with voyeurism, which applies to those cases that involve non-consensual deepfake pornography.
BNS 2023 has refined and retained many of IPC’s sections, in which it has introduced new elements that are relevant to new-age digital crime. Which has replaced section 469 of the IPC has been replaced by section 336 of the BNS, and section 500 of the IPC has been replaced by section 356 of the BNS.
Other Legislation
Other legislations deal with copyrights and personality rights, which provide additional protections for individuals against the creation and distribution of deepfakes.
The Copyright Act, 1957, may be relevant to cases in which deepfakes infringe on copyrighted content and personality rights.
There are also other provisions which deal with election-related content where political leaders fall into deepfakes, which comes under The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is a model code of conduct introduced by ECI. This provision helps to address false or misleading use of an election campaign during elections.
Other Guidelines
There are various guidelines issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Reserve Bank of India to address deepfake cases. In 2023The ministry issued specific guidelines for social media platforms regarding the removal and identification of deepfakes of content and took proactive measures to control the emerging threat of deepfakes.
Recently, the RBI had also issued guidelines related to KYC verification and authentication to deal with deepfakes of financial fraud. These advisories were significant to implement strong verification of clients to prevent financial deepfakes and identify thieves, and had also mandates in every financial institution.
What do the Cases Show?
The indian judiciary has dealt with various types of deepfake cases through various distinct jurisdictions. In this paragraph, we are going to see some of the landmark cases that have begun to shape the judiciary’s understanding of deepfake-related cases, through which it has created intersections in the existing laws and orders. Now, take a look at the landmark cases, which are as follows:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015
Facts: In this case, the crime was committed by sending annoying, offensive, and menacing messages online to the persons. Many people were arrested from different areas of the state for political criticism and harmful social media posts. Two girls from Maharashtra were also involved in it, who had made a critical Facebook post, which led death of a political leader. The petition was filed under Section 66A & violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of freedom of speech and expression.
Held: The Supreme Court had struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional. The court held that terms like annoying and offensive were subjective, vague, and could be misused. It has violated freedom of expression and was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). Where the court has led emphasis on the freedom of speech, where it also includes the right to criticise, and merely annoying can not be a crime. This statement strengthens digital free speech protections in India.
State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar, 2020
Facts: In this case, the issue raised involves the sharing of obscene digital content without consent. The issue raised is whether digital evidence is reliable or whether sharing intimate videos and images without his/her consent can be punishable?
Held: The court held that sharing obscene non-consensual content without his/her consent is an offensive act and must be taken seriously. It had also been said that electronic evidence must be followed under Section 65B as a requirement. This case has strengthened legal protection against illegal / misuse of digital content.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of Justice,2017
Facts: this case challenged the Aadhaar, which raised a question: Is privacy a Fundamental right?
Held: The bench of 9 judges had declared the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. In which they include control over personal dignity, identity, and information. This case was held on a constitutional basis against digital identity as well as deepfakes.
Several other cases have also started addressing deepfake pornography in lower courts, but still, some precedents are developing to address it. Courts generally started taking a serious view of deepfake pornography cases, where they have developed various provisions under the IPC, & IT Acts to ensure appropriate punishment for such offensive crime.
Although India can deal with all such harmful cases of deepfakes, there are some salient gaps that undermine its effectiveness. Let us see those gaps in other sections of this article.
Legal and Practical Gaps
As we know, there are various existing laws in India that are designed to solve the harmful cases of deepfakes, but still, there are four gaps that undermine effectiveness. The four gaps are as follows:
Absence of specific statutory duties and a definition for such cases
Not any statutory has clearly mentioned synthetic media, which sets regulations, obligations, and imposes watermark duties on generated videos, and other contents that act differently from regulatory responses. Which is more preventive rather than reactive?
Hurdles to solve technical and evidentiary issues during investigations
To find a guilty one, there is a need to trace the origin of deepfake content, for which there is a need for an accurate and preserved database and cross-platform cooperation. Because the intermediaries may not retain that much data, and can be hosted overseas.
Liability and notices to platforms to take down such issues with immediate effect
Currently, there are intermediaries whose rules are obligatory to correct sensitive content from platforms that are unlawful on notice, but this enforcement is also uneven. This may lead to the risk of overbroad censorship, which is happening due to inconsistencies in enforcement.
Make a balance between public interest & free expression
Deepfake cases in manipulating political speech raised concerns about investigations of legitimate speech, and expression through which the investigation of journalism can happen, whereas insufficient laws leave public speeches open to political manipulation.
Analysis of Other Countries’ Jurisdiction
It is an instructive way to examine how other jurisdictions are making rules and enforcement tools. This analysis highlights practical measures which can be borrowed by India can borrow to avoid the harmful effects of deepfake cases. Let’s take an insight into how the jurisdictions of other countries are responding.
U.S.A
In the USA, there is a mixed statute where there are state and federal bills/proposals. Several states have dealt with criminal and civil provisions that have addressed certain categories of deepfake cases. The cases involved pornography, laws targeting election-related cases, and identity theft.
The laws that have been issued in the USA to deal with deepfakes are as follows:
In 2019, an AI deepfake legislation tracker was launched.
After 82% acts launched in 2019 were enacted in 2024 & 2025.
There are 42 bills to address sexual deepfakes, 8 bills deal with political deepfakes, and 9 bills deal with tech-related deepfakes.
U.K.
The UK had adopted a two-track approach in 2024, which comes under the Online Safety Act, 2024. The approaches are as follows:
A platform regulation that regulates the safety obligations on regulated services,
And the other one is criminal law, which has been reformed to target harms that have been done by deepfakes.
The UK government had announced in early 2025 a package of criminalisation to strengthen and protect investigative powers to explicitly address deepfake images and porn content. And the outcome of this has also published some tool kits for responding to deepfakes for regulated services.
European Union
The EU is currently risk-based and progressive in dealing with such events. The EU had introduced the AI Act., which came into effect in August 2024.
The AI Act has been adopted for AI systems that are subject to high-risk systems, which ensures transparency, conformity, and governance obligations for certain manipulative systems that have faced enhanced duties. All these commitments and the commission’s proposal show that the EU had aimed to set global standards to impose obligations and duties on model providers.
As compared to these strong approaches, which are targeting deepfakes, India is still taking up new initiatives, which are taking time to handle. Although there are existing laws and acts like the IPC, IT Acts, and so on, they are not designed specifically to protect and deal swiftly with deepfake technology. Without such significant measures, India is taking a risk and leaving its people to the misuse of generated content, which is not good for the future.
Future Policy Guidance
After examining the current legal framework and the challenges shows that addressing deepfake technology has led to several recommendations to safeguard the current evolving threat in the country. The recommendations address the legislative, judicial, institutional, and regulatory aspects of deepfake governance.
Legislative
India should enact some deepfake-specific legislation that may address the cases of deepfakes, which can deal with challenging synthetic technology. That legislation should include a clear definition of specific criminal and deepfake content penalties for such malicious acts, with civil remedies for the victims who have suffered due to such acts. Amendments should be made to existing data protection and privacy legislation, which should significantly address deepfake-related violations, may protecting individuals’ rights.
Policy & Regulatory
The government should develop national guidelines to deal with such deepfake detention, prevention, and responses to regulate such acts and prevent coordination across different jurisdictions. In these guidelines, there must be technical standards and inter interagency cooperation mechanism. These specialized responses should be initiated within the Ministry of Electronics, and IT would provide expertise and coordination, which may address deepfake-related issues.
Legal System
There must be specialised procedures and training programs in the judicial system to handle deepfake cases, which may include technical education and court personnel for judges. There must be fast-track courts that may help to give relief to the victims of deepfake cases. There must be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that may help to deal with deepfake cases, which could help victims to get accessible remedies and faster proceedings.
Institutions
There must be an establishment of a public or private institution to deal with deepfakes research and development. This must include specialised cybercrime, forensic, and international cooperation mechanisms, and some industry and resources to support the development of prevention and detention technologies.
There is a need for educational institutes for technology where these initiatives will target the public, professionals, and government officers to improve their understanding of deepfakes and their implications.
Conclusion: Is the Current Scenario Enough?
The answer is simple: NO. Currently, Indian laws and administrative instruments enable a response to many harmful effects caused by deepfakes: although courts are using judicial powers and police FIRs, which show high visibility in the cases. However, there is a lack of statutory laws and a lack of duties on AI platforms, which are important to address evidentiary challenges in attribution and challenges. It is needed to protect freedom of speech and expression, which must be reactive rather than comprehensive and preventive.
The comparative analysis with the USA, UK, and EU has shown a very vast range of instruments, which are risk-based, administrative rules, and AI acts. From all these acts and regulations, India can adopt some of the acts in the constitutional parts.
