Abstract:
We are living in the era of dynamic development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Our lifestyle is changing significantly because of it. A coin has two sides, just like that AI also has positive and negative impacts. Due to development of AI cybercrimes is also rising significantly, out of which deepfakes is one. Deepfakes have become popular since they can cause manipulation of the real world.
Nowadays, negative news covers our social media through You tube, Facebook, Instagram etc which affects the society. We aren’t able to differentiate between real and fake news. It is not only the affecting the illiterate people but also has a greater influence among the literate people. This paper explores the multi faced implication of deepfakes and focuses on the problems relating to usefulness of it. Not only in India, all over the world deepfakes threaten the privacy of people.
In India digital media plays crucial role in shaping public opinion. Deepfake distracts reality and spread misinformation. This affects the social stability as people are not ready to find out that the news is true or not. India is the largest democratic and diverse nation which has numerous laws, but no specific legislation for AI. Here a simple question arises, How the existing laws can be applied to the novel technologies (Deepfakes).
Key words
- Deepfakes
- Artificial Intelligence,
- Laws
- Cybercrimes
- Privacy
Introduction
Digital dependency is now an integral part of everyday life. How ever there has been a huge cost associated with the data consumption that individual businesses and the government for which the society has to pay. The cybercrimes have exponentially grown up. There are many AI crimes in India like deepfakes, AI powered phishing, DDoS (Distributed Denial-of-Service) attack etc.
Deepfake is a type of AI technology that creates convincing images, videos and audio recordings that seems real but are fake. The term is a combination of words “deep learning and fake”. It is one of AI algorithm that is trained trained on creating data with of image, video or audio.
Cambridge Dictionary defines deepfake as “a video or sound recording that replaces someone’s face or voice with that of someone else, in a way that appears real.”
This term deepfake which was created in 2017, a technique which started with swapping face in videos by super imposing face and body. It used machine algorithms to create hyper-realistic images and videos that seemed very authentic. Multi-faced implications of deepfakes manipulates and mis-represents real people
Research Methodology
This paper is a detailed study and the is research based on secondary sources of deepfakes and the role of governmental laws and regulations in the problems arising because of it. The secondary sources include articles, journal writings and websites.
INDIA’S LEGAL SYSTEM FOR REGULATING DEEPFAKES
1.Information Technology Act
The Information Technology Act of 2000 serves as the main legislation regulating digital activities in India. Together with Sections 77, 78, 111, 294, 303, and 318 of the BNS Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, the IT Act offers a comprehensive framework that can be utilized to tackle some issues related to cyber crimes. Section 66E of the IT Act deals with breaches of privacy. The penalty for intentionally capturing, printing, or distributing images of someone’s intimate areas without consent is outlined in this provision. While this section is not explicitly aimed at deepfakes, it can be applied in scenarios where deepfake technology is utilized to create and share non-consensual pornography, which is a widespread and notably harmful use of deepfakes.
Core IT Act Provisions
1.Section 66C: Addresses identity theft through fraudulent impersonation using electronic methods, which is directly relevant to deepfakes that mimic someone’s appearance.
2.Section 66D: Focuses on cheating by impersonation via computer resources, thereby encompassing misleading deepfake videos or audio.
3.Section 66E: Imposes penalties for intentional privacy violations, including the unauthorized capture or distribution of deepfake images depicting private acts without consent.
Obscenity Provisions
1.Section 67: This section makes it illegal to publish or transmit obscene material electronically, including sexually explicit deepfakes.
2.Section 67A: This section imposes stricter penalties for transmitting sexually explicit acts, with repeat offenders facing up to five years in prison.
Platform and Blocking Rules
1.Section 69A: This provision gives the government the authority to block deepfake content that poses a threat to public order.
2.Section 79: This section limits the safe harbor protections for intermediaries if they do not promptly remove deepfake violations.
2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, takes significant steps to tackle the issue of deepfakes. It includes provisions focused on misinformation, cybercrimes, impersonation, and forgery involving synthetic media. These new sections update criminal penalties, transitioning from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to modernized consequences that include imprisonment for up to 3-5 years and applicable fines. The legislation specifically addresses the coordinated misuse of deepfakes, such as interference during elections and inciting communal tensions.
Key Sections:
1.Section 353: This section penalizes any statements, rumours, or electronic content that lead to public mischief, fear, or hostility between different groups; it is particularly relevant for deepfakes that disseminate false information.
2.Section 111: This section tackles organized cybercrimes, encompassing widespread deepfake campaigns aimed at fraud or disruption.
3.Section 319: Focused on cheating through impersonation, this provision is directly applicable to misleading deepfake videos or audio.
Additional Provisions:
1.Section 336: This section imposes penalties for fraudulent impersonation conducted through electronic channels, including the use of deepfakes to mimic officials.
2.Section 356: This section addresses the forgery of electronic records as a result of AI-generated synthetic content, with penalties of up to 3 years of imprisonment.
3.Section 212: This section aims at tackling the distribution of false information through deepfakes, which broadens the prosecutorial toolkit.
Enforcement of these provisions will work in conjunction with the IT Rules, which mandate the removal of deepfake content within 36 hours, effective from July 2024.
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, has taken steps to indirectly address the issue of deepfakes by overseeing the handling of personal data, including biometrics, images, and voice data used to create synthetic media without consent. The penalties for violations are significant, reaching up to ₹250 crore, and data fiduciaries—like platforms—are obligated to take action to prevent misuse. Instead of having specific sections dedicated to deepfakes, the Act complements existing laws such as the IT Act and BNS provisions.
Key Relevant Sections
1.Section 4: This section broadly defines “personal data” to encompass any information that can identify an individual, which includes the raw materials for deepfakes, such as photos and videos, as well as the final deepfake content, provided it can be identified.
2.Section 6: It establishes that personal data processing must be lawful and based on verifiable consent or legitimate purposes. Creating deepfakes from scraped personal data without consent constitutes a breach of this section.
3.Section 8: Data fiduciaries are required to ensure that the data they handle is accurate, complete, and secure. This means that platforms must take action to remove inaccurate deepfakes that could influence decisions about data subjects.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
India’s deepfake regulations, established under the IT Act, BNS, and DPDP, present notable constitutional challenges concerning Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech), 21 (right to privacy), and 14 (equality). These frameworks attempt to balance harm prevention with the risk of regulatory overreach. Courts have previously invalidated ambiguous provisions, such as the 2023 FCU fact-checking amendment, citing concerns over its chilling effect on free expression and the lack of adequate procedural safeguards.
1.Right to Privacy
India recognizes the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, shielding individuals from unauthorized misuse of deepfakes involving personal data such as biometrics, images, or voice. The landmark Puttaswamy judgment of 2017 established privacy as an essential facet of life and liberty, permitting restrictions only when they meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), the Information Technology (IT) Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) translate these principles into actionable safeguards, emphasizing consent and data security.
India recognizes the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, shielding individuals from unauthorized misuse of deepfakes involving personal data such as biometrics, images, or voice. The landmark Puttaswamy judgment of 2017 established privacy as an essential facet of life and liberty, permitting restrictions only when they meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), the Information Technology (IT) Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) translate these principles into actionable safeguards, emphasizing consent and data security.
Deepfakes and Privacy Infringements
Non-consensual deepfakes violate informational privacy by exploiting personal data without explicit consent, breaching DPDP’s Section 6 in a manner comparable to biometric data misuse highlighted in Aadhaar-related challenges. Victims have recourse through the Data Protection Board for inquiries or can file writ petitions under Article 226 to address dignity violations, with courts categorizing explicit deepfakes as infringements on Article 21 rights. Furthermore, under DPDP Section 8, platforms are obligated to delete unlawfully processed data to mitigate reputational harm.
Striking a Balance Through Regulation
The IT Rules impose obligations like content labeling and removal within 36 hours, prioritizing privacy without resorting to blanket bans. These measures align with proportionality standards set by the Puttaswamy verdict, unlike the overreaching Section 66A that was invalidated. Similarly, BNS Sections 319 and 356 address privacy harms arising from impersonation, though implementing these safeguards demands judicial checks to ensure legitimate use of AI remains protected. Ensuring verifiable consent for using public figures’ data continues to pose significant challenges, illustrating the ongoing tension between innovation and privacy protection.
Deepfakes and Privacy Infringements
Non-consensual deepfakes violate informational privacy by exploiting personal data without explicit consent, breaching DPDP’s Section 6 in a manner comparable to biometric data misuse highlighted in Aadhaar-related challenges. Victims have recourse through the Data Protection Board for inquiries or can file writ petitions under Article 226 to address dignity violations, with courts categorizing explicit deepfakes as infringements on Article 21 rights. Furthermore, under DPDP Section 8, platforms are obligated to delete unlawfully processed data to mitigate reputational harm.
Striking a Balance Through Regulation
The IT Rules impose obligations like content labeling and removal within 36 hours, prioritizing privacy without resorting to blanket bans. These measures align with proportionality standards set by the Puttaswamy verdict, unlike the overreaching Section 66A that was invalidated. Similarly, BNS Sections 319 and 356 address privacy harms arising from impersonation, though implementing these safeguards demands judicial checks to ensure legitimate use of AI remains protected. Ensuring verifiable consent for using public figures’ data continues to pose significant challenges, illustrating the ongoing tension between innovation and privacy protection.
2.Right to Reputation
India’s right to reputation under Article 21 encounters significant challenges with the rise of deepfake technology, as synthetic media is increasingly used to produce defamatory content that undermines an individual’s social standing, dignity, and goodwill. Recognizing these threats as a serious evolution of reputational harm beyond traditional libel, courts have been granting urgent injunctions to curb the non-consensual misuse of a person’s likeness, voice, or persona. Victims are resorting to legal remedies through defamation provisions under BNS along with asserting their personality rights.
Available Remedies and Legal Framework
High Courts, leveraging their powers under Article 226, have provided victims with ex-parte relief measures, including John Doe orders and the blocking of harmful URLs. In addition, under the IT Rules, platforms are mandated to take down infringing content within 36 hours. Section 356 of the BNS criminalizes defamation via deepfakes, and the DPDP Act penalizes the unauthorized use of biometric data which is often exploited to create synthetic content. Public figures such as Amitabh Bachchan have also obtained legal safeguards against fabricated endorsements to protect their reputation from harm caused by false representations.
3.Freedom to Speech vs. Abuse of Technology
India’s approach to deepfake regulation carefully balances the right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) with measures to prevent technology misuse, as restricted by Article 19(2) on grounds such as public order, defamation, and decency. Courts have employed a nuanced strategy by upholding targeted restrictions, such as the 36-hour takedown requirement under IT Rules, following the landmark *Shreya Singhal* (2015) ruling. This decision struck down vague laws while permitting content blocking under Section 69A, provided adequate safeguards are in place. Legitimate expressions like satire or parody remain safeguarded if they are not intended to harm.
Technology Abuse Limits
On the other hand, limits on technology abuse are actively enforced. For instance, Section 353 of the BNS penalizes deepfakes spreading disinformation designed to incite public disorder with up to three years of imprisonment. Cases involving non-consensual pornographic deepfakes constitute violations of privacy and decency, for which free speech defenses do not apply. Transparency measures, such as mandatory labeling of AI-generated content, foster accountability without stifling innovation in artificial intelligence.
ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN DETECTION AND PREVENTION OF DEEPFAKES
Artificial Intelligence plays an essential role in creating deepfakes and combating them through advanced detection techniques and preventive systems.
AI-Based Detection Tools
AI-based detection tools such as Hive AI, Sensity AI, Intel FakeCatcher, and Reality Defender use machine learning to assess facial landmarks, blood flow patterns, audio discrepancies, and metadata for real-time deepfake identification. These technologies have demonstrated 90-98% accuracy during controlled assessments. Such platforms offer forensic reports with confidence scores and heatmaps, assisting law enforcement by flagging manipulated content in videos, images, and voice recordings. OpenAI’s detector and Pindrop Pulse focus on threats like voice cloning, integrating proactive scanning capabilities into applications.
Cyber Forensics and Law Enforcement
In cyber forensics and law enforcement, agencies employ multi-modal analysis tools like those from Sensity and DeepMedia. These systems combine blockchain tracking, IP log monitoring, and watermark identification, in line with guidelines such as India’s IT Rules drafts. For example, Maharashtra Cyber utilizes hash verification tools under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for swift complaint registrations, as seen in cases like Payal Gaming. Platforms are required to act within 36-hour takedown periods. Internationally, organizations such as Europol rely on similar systems for cross-border operations.
.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
1. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023): The Delhi High Court issued dynamic, global injunctions against deepfake pornographic content, emphasizing the protection of reputation as an essential part of publicity rights.
2. Shilpa Shetty Case (Bombay HC, 2025): The court ordered the immediate takedown of AI-generated explicit content that violated privacy, dignity, and reputation, underscoring the protections granted under Article 21.
3. Sadhguru (Jaggi Vasudev) Case (Delhi HC, 2025): A “dynamic+” injunction was issued to prevent the spread of deepfake impersonations disseminating false information, acknowledging the potential for severe reputational damage.
4. R. Madhavan, NTR Jr., Ankur Warikoo Cases (2025): Courts compelled platforms to disclose IP addresses and facilitate prompt removal of content, framing deepfakes as sources of economic, psychological, and societal harm.
Review of Literature:
In his legal research paper Sheikh Inam Ul Mansoor, Asst. Prof of Central University of Kashmir Law, talks about legal implications of deepfake technology in the context of manipulation, privacy, and identity theft. It focuses on privacy, mis-information and regulatory responses caused within the Indian context.
The research paper aims to identify the complex, legal implications arising from the rise of deepfake technology. It analyses the existing legal frameworks and the gaps in handling the unique challenges posted by the deepfakes. The idea proposes possibilities for legal reforms and technological interventions to safeguard against their misuse.
He says “forward thinking approaches become ever more crucial” which is so true.
He talks about the legal framework and the current laws. India has no specific law for artificial intelligence and deepfakes, but it was governed under some other acts eg; Information Technology Act 2000, Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023. Now India only has these Acts specially for punishing cybercrime criminals, but all these Acts are old and were created for other purpose.
One of the famous cases for Right to Privacy is “K.S. Puttaswamy Vs Union of India”. This case highlights right to privacy is a fundamental right as per the constitution. The recent Act Personal Data protection bill 2019 aims to provide comprehensive data protection and safeguard the privacy. This act strengthens the legal provisions relating to data privacy.
“Accountability of Digital Media platforms” addresses these concerns of Indian Government which has initiated several measures to stop the spread fake news. For instance, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has issued guidelines requiring social media intermediaries to deploy technology-based measures such as automated tools to identify and remove fakes news and other harmful contents.
To stop these people are need to apply forward thinking approaches which becomes more crucial. His first and foremost suggestion to avoid deepfake problems is the requirement of public awareness campaigns to citizens which help avoid risk and identify deepfake content. And one more is watermark, the organizations who are creating these type of deepfake photo images and videos with the watermark can help to identify deepfakes and images and videos.
Protection of privacy is more important than anything. Misusing data is an unlawful act, without which data the AI cannot function. Consent is most important one to create anything which has to be governed with right laws.
Solution and Conclusion
Cyber crimes are increasing day by day because of development of AI, future is dependent on it. Need of a specific law for use, creation, distribution of deepfakes and punishment if misused is a pressing concern for present and future society. Social media apps like Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and email primary source for transferring information for many people have also become AI generative these days.
Deepfakes have the potential of to feed fake information to illiterate and literate people. To stop these, collaboration between governments and the technological companies is required. This will result in creation and identification tools for awareness to protect the people and help them for a better future
Name: Dasarathi V
University: Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology
Footnotes
https://dictionary.cambridge.org
https://ccoe.dsci.in/blog/understanding-deepfakes
https://www.britannica.com/technology/deepfake