Deepfakes and the Law: India’s Legal Challenges

This Blog is Written by Vashishth Choumal, 5th Year, B.A. LL.B., KES’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College, Mumbai.

Blog 13 | Edition VIII

This article examines the emerging legal challenges deepfakes pose in India, particularly regarding artificial intelligence, privacy, personality rights, criminal law, intermediary liability, and electronic evidence. Deepfakes have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish genuine content from artificially created or manipulated material, raising important questions about identity, consent, authenticity, and legal responsibility. Rather than viewing artificial intelligence only as a technological development, this article focuses on the legal challenges created by the growing use of synthetic media and its potential impact on individuals and society. Adopting a doctrinal and analytical approach, the article examines relevant statutory provisions, judicial developments, and recent regulatory measures to assess how effectively India’s existing legal framework addresses these challenges. It also considers the need to balance protection against misuse of deepfake technology with technological innovation and the freedom of expression. Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has altered how information is created, reproduced, and consumed. Among its most legally disruptive applications is the deepfake—synthetically generated or manipulated audio, video or visual material capable of making an individual appear to say or do something that never occurred. The legal difficulty does not arise merely from the existence of synthetic media; it arises from the possibility that such material may be indistinguishable from authentic content and may consequently affect reputation, privacy, dignity, identity, property and public trust. The emergence of deepfakes therefore exposes a fundamental problem for law: legal systems traditionally assume that audiovisual evidence is capable of communicating an event that actually occurred. Synthetic media challenges that assumption. A fabricated video can manufacture an event, while genuine material can simultaneously be dismissed as fabricated. The question before Indian law is consequently not simply how to prohibit deepfakes, but how to distinguish legitimate synthetic expression from unlawful deception and provide effective remedies where harm occurs. India does not presently regulate every deepfake through one comprehensive statute. Instead, the legal response is distributed across the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Information Technology Rules, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”), data-protection legislation and judicially developed personality-rights jurisprudence.

Understanding the Legal Problem of Deepfakes

A deepfake is not inherently unlawful merely because it has been generated or modified using AI. A fictional film, satire, parody or clearly labelled synthetic representation may raise very different legal questions from a fabricated intimate image, fraudulent video, impersonation or manipulated recording circulated with an intention to deceive. This distinction is legally significant. Treating every AI-generated representation as unlawful could unnecessarily restrict artistic expression, research and technological development. Conversely, treating deepfakes merely as another form of online content risks overlooking the distinctive harm caused by realistic impersonation.

The Information Technology Act, 2000: An Existing Foundation

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) remains an important statutory foundation for addressing several forms of deepfake-related misconduct. Section 66C addresses identity theft, while Section 66D criminalises cheating by personation using a communication device or computer resource. Section 66E addresses the intentional or knowing capture, publication or transmission of images of private areas without consent in circumstances violating privacy. Sections 67, 67A and 67B further deal with obscene, sexually explicit and child sexual material in electronic form.

The 2026 IT Rules and Synthetically Generated Information

A significant development in India’s regulatory approach occurred with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026. The amendments introduce a regulatory framework specifically addressing “synthetically generated information” (SGI). The framework is particularly significant because it moves beyond an exclusively punitive model. Intermediaries facilitating the creation or modification of synthetic information may have obligations concerning identification and labelling. The regulatory framework also contemplates enhanced obligations for Significant Social Media Intermediaries (“SSMIs”), including technical verification and prominent labelling of synthetic information.

Deepfakes and Personality Rights

One of the most significant developments has occurred through Indian judicial recognition of personality and publicity rights. A person’s name, image, voice, likeness and other distinctive attributes may possess both personal and commercial significance. AI enables these attributes to be replicated at scale without the individual’s participation. In Ravi Shankar v. John Doe(s)/Ashok Kumar(s) & Ors., the Delhi High Court dealt with alleged unauthorised deepfake content involving the plaintiff’s name, voice, facial expressions, persona and likeness. The Court recorded a prima facie case and restrained the circulation of the alleged deepfake content at the interim stage. The significance of such judicial intervention lies in its recognition that traditional personality-rights principles can operate within an AI environment. At the same time, reliance upon individual civil litigation has practical limitations. A prominent individual may have access to legal resources and the ability to obtain urgent injunctive relief, whereas an ordinary victim may face considerable difficulties in identifying the creator, locating the intermediary and obtaining timely remedies. The development of personality-rights jurisprudence must therefore be accompanied by accessible mechanisms through which victims can report, authenticate and seek removal of unlawful synthetic content.

Deepfakes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The BNS introduces another important dimension. Section 336 defines forgery to include the making of a false document or false electronic record with specified fraudulent or injurious intentions. The provision also provides enhanced consequences where a forged electronic record is intended to be used for cheating or to harm reputation. This is particularly relevant to deepfake litigation because certain synthetic representations may be capable of constituting false electronic records where the statutory requirements relating to forgery are satisfied. However, the existence of a manipulated electronic record alone should not automatically result in criminal liability. The statutory ingredients—including the relevant intention and purpose—must still be established. This distinction prevents technological manipulation from becoming an offence independent of the legally relevant circumstances surrounding its creation or use. The challenge works both ways. The emergence of convincing deepfakes may create a “liar’s dividend,” allowing genuine evidence to be falsely dismissed as fabricated. The law must consequently detect synthetic evidence while preserving confidence in authentic digital records. Deepfake creation often involves the unauthorised use of a person’s photographs, facial features, recordings or voice, making privacy and data protection central concerns. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides a framework for processing digital personal data, but its application to deepfakes must be read alongside the IT Act, criminal law and other applicable legal principles. The broader issue is consent and control over identity. As faces and voices can be replicated without permission, deepfakes challenge traditional notions of personal identity and strengthen the need for effective legal protection in the digital environment.

Policy Recommendations for Deepfake Regulation in India

India’s approach to deepfake regulation should be guided by harm, transparency, provenance and accountability, rather than a blanket prohibition of synthetic media. Stronger standards for content provenance, metadata and watermarking can help identify synthetic content, while victims require swift and accessible grievance mechanisms, particularly in cases of impersonation, intimate imagery and financial fraud. India must also strengthen its digital-forensic infrastructure to authenticate evidence and trace unlawful content. Ultimately, deepfake regulation requires a coordinated approach across criminal law, privacy, data protection, intermediary regulation, evidence law, intellectual property and constitutional rights.

Conclusion

Deepfakes expose a fundamental tension between technological capability and legal certainty. By enabling highly convincing synthetic images, videos and recordings, generative AI challenges the traditional assumption that digital content reliably reflects reality. India’s legal framework is evolving to meet this challenge. The IT Act addresses identity theft, impersonation, privacy and sexually explicit content; the BNS recognises false electronic records in the law of forgery; the BSA governs electronic evidence; and the 2026 IT Rules specifically regulate synthetically generated information. Judicial developments on personality rights further demonstrate the adaptability of existing legal principles. The real challenge is not to prohibit deepfakes altogether, but to distinguish synthetic creativity from synthetic deception. India must therefore balance innovation with effective protection of identity, privacy, reputation and digital autonomy, while preserving public trust in an increasingly synthetic information environment.

 

(Write to the author at vashishthchowmal16@gmail.com.)