When Seeing Can't Believe It: Laws Against AI Deepfakes in India

               Imagine that you are suddenly receiving a video of your mother or father asking you to transfer money quickly. You recognize their face, their voice sounds the same, and the fear on their face is the same. Trusting what you see and hear, you transfer the money. A few hours later, you discover something unsettling that your father never made that video.

               Now imagine that when you waking up in the morning and seeing a video of yourself circulating online. In that video, you appear to be saying or doing something you never said or did. Your face and voice look exactly like the real thing, but the video is completely fabricated. This is happening to a large number of people. This is the world of AI deepfakes.

               For decades, photographs and videos have been treated as evidence of authenticity. But artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to challenge this notion. 

               Today, technology can copy a person's face, clone their voice, and create highly convincing videos with remarkable accuracy. Deepfake technology has legitimate uses in films, education, and entertainment, but when maliciously, it can become a powerful tool for deception, harassment, and reputational damage.

Deepfake = much more than just a fake video.

               A deepfake generally refers to AI-created or digitally altered audio, video, or images designed to appear authentic. A person's face may be placed into a video they never participated in, or their voice may be used to say words they never spoke. The danger isn't just that the content is fake. A convincing deepfake can create something that never happened, yet visually appear convincing.

AI-generated content = Apparent authenticity = Human trust = Potential harm.

              Deepfakes can be primarily used for financial fraud, impersonation, non-consensual sexually explicit content, defamation, and political misinformation. This technology doesn't discriminate between celebrities and ordinary people. Anyone whose photos, videos, or voice recordings are available online can potentially become a target.

When AI Becomes a Tool for Fraud

               Imagine receiving a video call from someone who appears to be your employer or a family member. The face matches and the voice also matches. The person asks you to transfer money immediately. Later, you discover that the person was never actually on the call.

               When deepfakes are used to impersonate someone for the purpose of swindling or fraud, provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, may apply. Section 66C deals with identity theft, while Section 66D deals with cheating by personation using a computer or communication device. The legal principle is simple that AI does not create a new type of fraud; rather, it complicates existing offenses.

Traditional fraud = False identity.

Deepfake fraud = Synthetically created identity.

Privacy, Dignity and Sexually Explicit Deepfakes

               One of the most disturbing uses of deepfake technology is the creation of sexually explicit or derogatory content without the consent of the person whose identity is being used. Someone may take photographs from an individual's social media account and use AI to create fabricated content. Even though the victim never participated in the recording, the content can cause severe embarrassment and damage to their reputation.

               Depending on the circumstances, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act (violation of privacy) may become relevant. Where obscene or sexually explicit content is created or disseminated electronically, Sections 67 and 67A may also be invoked. The law cannot simply say, "The video is fake, so no one was harmed." Even if the content is fabricated, the violation of dignity is real. 

Deepfakes and Criminal Law

               While deepfake technology is new, the wrongful acts committed using it are often age-old. Fraud existed before AI; defamation existed before social media and intimidation took place before the internet. Based on the facts, relevant sections of the *Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita*, 2023—covering fraud, defamation, intimidation, and other offenses may become applicable.

- Section 318 (Cheating): Deceiving someone or inducing them to part with property or to do (or omit to do) something, thereby causing—or likely causing—harm to their body, mind, reputation, or property.

- Section 319 (Cheating by Personation): Committing fraud by assuming the identity or appearance of another person.

- Section 353 (Public Mischief): Spreading misinformation that endangers public peace.

- Section 356 (Defamation): Damaging a person's dignity or reputation.

               Therefore, the important question is not merely whether a deepfake was created, but The question why it was created and what harm resulted from it. Fraud, defamation, intimidation, or violation of privacy = the underlying legal offense.

Can someone legally use your face or voice?

               Deepfakes also raise significant questions regarding "personality rights." A person's identity is not defined solely by their name; their face, voice, image, and public persona can hold both personal and commercial value. Unauthorized use of these characteristics can give rise to serious legal issues.

               The Delhi High Court's decision regarding actor Anil Kapoor has become particularly significant in this context. The Court recognized the need to protect personality attributes from unauthorized use, including misuse facilitated by technologies such as AI and deepfakes. The court acknowledged the necessity of protecting personality traits from unauthorized exploitation, including through the misuse of technologies such AI and deepfakes.

               This principle is not limited to celebrities alone. Imagine a company using an AI-generated version of your face in an advertisement, making it appear as though you have endorsed their product—even though you never gave permission and were never paid. Yet, people believe the advertisement. Technology should not make human identity easily available for exploitation.

What is the responsibility of social media platforms?

               Once a harmful deepfake is uploaded online, it can be copied and circulated within minutes. This raises another important question: what is the responsibility of social media platforms? Under the Information Technology framework and IT Rules, intermediaries (platforms) are required to adhere to mandatory due diligence obligations. In simple terms, due diligence entails taking reasonable and legally required steps to prevent unlawful activity and comply with legal obligations.

               Therefore, liability cannot rest solely with the person who created the deepfake; multiple parties may be involved beyond the creator:

Creator = Who made it?

Uploader = Who circulated it?

Platform = What action was taken after the unlawful content was identified? 

               This issue is particularly significant because it is practically impossible for a victim to fight a lone battle against thousands of anonymous accounts.

India's Response to AI-Generated Content

               India's legal approach to deepfakes is gradually evolving. The existing framework includes the Information Technology Act, criminal laws, privacy protections, personality rights, and intermediary obligations.

               Recently, the government strengthened the framework to curb the harms associated with synthetically generated information (SGI)—specifically deepfakes and AI-generated content—by amending the IT Rules, 2021. This move acknowledges that AI-generated content presents challenges for which traditional laws were not originally designed.

- Platforms are required to remove illegal deepfake content within three hours of it being flagged.

- AI-generated content must carry a label covering at least 10% of the display area to inform users that the content is synthetic.

- Failure to comply with these rules could result in platforms losing the legal safe harbor protection granted under Section 79 of the IT Act.

               Issues surrounding labeling, traceability, consent, identification, and the rapid removal of harmful AI-generated content will become increasingly critical.

The Biggest Danger: Losing Trust in Reality

                Perhaps the greatest danger posed by deepfake technology is not merely the creation of fake videos, but It is the destruction of trust. What happens when we no longer feel confident trusting an audio recording, a photograph, a voice message, or a video call? Deepfakes give rise to two dangerous possibilities:

Something fake can appear authentic.

Something genuine can be dismissed as fake.

               A person caught in a genuine video could easily claim that it was created using AI. This creates an entirely new set of challenges for courts, investigative agencies, and the handling of digital evidence. The question is no longer simply whether a video exists or not. The question may well be whether we can prove whether a video is genuine or fake.

Conclusion

                Deepfake technology presents one of the most serious legal challenges of the artificial intelligence era. An individual's face can be copied, their voice cloned, and their identity used to fabricate a reality that never actually existed.

               India's legal response is evolving through the Information Technology Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, laws regarding privacy and personality rights, intermediary obligations, and new regulations concerning AI-generated content.

               However, legislation alone cannot solve the problem. Technology requires better detection capabilities, platforms require greater accountability, and citizens require increased digital awareness.

               Because in the age of artificial intelligence, one of humanity's oldest assumptions may no longer suffice: seeing is no longer believing. The question for the future cannot simply be: "Is this video real?" Instead, the question becomes: "When technology can fabricate reality so convincingly, how do we prove what is genuine?"

Note - This blog of lawhelp4you.com is for informational purposes only. We apologize for any errors.

Thanks to Advocate Priyam Kashyap for writing this blog.