Published on: 27th December 2025
Authored by: Priyanshu Fartyal
University Law College, Bangalore University
ABSTRACT
Deepfakes challenge truth in the digital age, where technology can alter reality. This paper reviews how the law can respond to such a fast-moving threat. Drawing on experiences around the world-from the targeted laws of the United States to the transparency model of the European Union, it examines how nations are learning to tackle the emergence of such a global threat. India’s stand on it, analyzing the current legal framework under the IT Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Article 21’s promise of privacy and dignity. The paper argues that India must move beyond current laws and create a clear and forward-looking framework that will protect individuals from digital manipulation while allowing technology to grow responsibly and ethically.
INTRODUCTION
The misuse of artificial intelligence for creating “deepfakes” has entered Indian courts. In Akshay Hari Om Bhatia vs John Doe & Ors. (Bombay High Court, October 2025), The Court granted interim relief to actor Akshay Kumar after various deepfakes where he was falsely depicted.[1]
The court emphasized the urgent need for safeguards against such impersonation that extend beyond a celebrity’s right and for the interest of the public at large. The Akshay Kumar case is not an isolated event; various other public figures and the increase in deepfakes fraud have raised serious concerns regarding digital impersonation. As such incidents multiply, it is time to understand what deepfakes are and the legal scenario around them. A deepfake is a video, photo, or audio recording that appears to be real but has actually been manipulated using AI. The underlying technology replaces faces, manipulates facial expressions, synthesizes faces, and synthesizes speech. Deepfakes can depict someone seemingly saying or doing something they never said or did[2]. Deepfakes raise complex legal questions involving issues of privacy, consent, and impersonation, hence challenging the existing legal frameworks. This article explores how other jurisdictions have responded to such challenges and what Indian law can learn in addressing this emerging obstacle.
UNDERSTANDING DEEPFAKES
Deepfakes are produced using Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning, using artificial neural networks, which are computer systems modeled loosely on the human brain that recognize patterns in data. Developing a deepfake photo or video typically involves feeding hundreds or thousands of images into the artificial neural network, training it to identify and reconstruct patterns usually faces. This process usually consists of two models, one generator that creates synthetic images or videos, while the other one evaluates their realism.
Anyone with basic computer skills and a computer can create a deepfake. There are numerous applications, along with tutorials on how to create deepfake videos on the internet. However, to create a realistic deepfake, the generator is trained on vast datasets of real human faces, voices, or movements, to manipulate the content that can mimic real people.
Deepfakes are powerful tools that can be used for exploitation and disinformation. They depict the individuals committing false acts they never did, leading to harm to the reputation of such a person. The viral circulation of various celebrities and politicians has demonstrated how even a split second of fabrication can distort their public image and cause damage. This does not confine to just the impersonation of celebrities, deepfakes have become a weapon to commit fraud. The AI tools can replicate voices, faces, or imitate gestures, and have been reported to numerous cyber-frauds. As various new scams come up each year, AI-related scams, including deepfakes, according to McAfee Labs’ State of the Scamiverse 2025 report, have increased by over 400% between 2022 and 2024. [3]
The creation of deepfake content strikes at our Right to privacy, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India & Ors,[4] the honorable Supreme Court has recognized privacy as a fundamental right, so when a person’s likeness or voice is replicated without consent, it constitutes a direct violation of their dignity, which is an essential element of Article 21.
Despite the rise of deepfakes, India does not have a specific legal framework that directly addresses the creation or its misuse. Neither the Information Technology Act (2000) nor the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, define the term “deepfake”. Although Rule 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Rules requires the intermediaries to observe due diligence regarding the information that is invasive of another’s privacy, while Rule 3(1)(b)(vi) talks about the due diligence by intermediaries in the scope of impersonating another person, these provisions do not explicitly recognize AI-generated synthetic media[5].
GLOBAL APPROACHES TO DEEPFAKES
As India continues to grapple with the emergence of the threat of deepfakes due to the absence of a dedicated regulatory framework, it is important to look at how other jurisdictions are coping with this problem. Various countries and regions have gone through different approaches and adopted diverse models to tackle the problem of deepfakes. Studying these approaches can help India in shaping future deepfake policies.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In the USA, most states have general criminal impersonation laws before the internet, making it illegal to impersonate a lawyer, doctor, or government official, and these laws apply to all types of media, including online videos and images.
California was the first State to pass AB 602 (2019) to prohibit non-consensual deepfake pornography[6], and AB 730 (2019), restricting political deepfakes within 60 days of an election[7].
The other U.S. states have also enacted various specialised laws to address deepfakes harms, such as sexual privacy, election integrity, and others.
At the federal level, the United States is advancing the Deepfakes Accountability Act (H.R. 5586, 118th Congress, 2023), which is there to protect national security against the threats posed by deepfake technology and to provide legal recourse to victims of harmful deepfakes.[8] The act focuses on disclosing or watermarking the synthetic media with a clear indication that they are artificially generated. Further, the act also focuses on the remedies where the deepfakes are used maliciously.
EUROPEAN UNION
The European Union, to tackle the increasing challenge of deepfakes, adopted a systematic approach with two regulatory frameworks: The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, 2024, and the Digital Services Act (DSA), 2022.
The AI Act 2024 is the world’s first comprehensive law on Artificial Intelligence, enacted in March 2024.
Article 50(1) of the aforesaid Act provides that when an AI system is interacting directly with natural persons, they are to be informed that they are not communicating with a natural person.
The Article 50(2) emphasises marking on AI systems that generate synthetic media, which must be in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated. Further the Article 50(4) provides that an AI system that generates or manipulates media constitutes a deepfake, and shall disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated[9].
The Digital Services Act (DSA) aims to create a safer and more transparent digital environment by placing due diligence obligations on online intermediaries. Article 16 of the act requires intermediaries to establish a “notice and action” mechanism allowing users to report illegal or deceptive content.[10]
OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Australia bought the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 to amend its Criminal Code to create a new offence where a person transmits sexual material that depicts another person. The new offence will apply regardless of whether the material is unaltered or has been created or altered in any way using technology.[11]
Singapore also introduced the Election (Integrity of Online Advertising)(Amendment) Bill 2024, providing for the prohibition of the publication of online election advertising containing certain digitally generated or manipulated content about candidates, and for related purposes.[12]
INDIA’S LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Although India does not have an exclusive regulatory framework that deals with deepfakes or Artificial Intelligence in particular. India’s framework is still evolving, responding to deepfake-related harms through general provisions. Offences which arise from impersonation, obscenity, or defamation are prosecuted under the Information Technology Act,2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
The Information Technology Act, 2000, through section 66D, provides for the punishment for cheating by personation by using a computer resource, while 66E talks about the punishment in case of capturing, publishing, or transmitting an image of a private area of any person without his or her consent.[13] Along with Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, requiring intermediaries to observe due diligence regarding the information that is invasive of another’s privacy, and the due diligence by intermediaries in the scope of impersonating another person.
The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, through section 319, provides for the prosecution of a person if he cheats by personation, if he cheats by pretending to be some other person. Further, section 356 addresses defamation, which can extend to manipulated or AI-generated content that can cause damage to an individual’s reputation.[14]
In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India & Ors,[15] the honorable Supreme Court has recognized privacy as a fundamental right, which guarantees the Right to life and Personal Liberty; hence, the damage posed by deepfakes can be viewed through the lens of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The unauthorised use of an individual’s face, likeness, or voice can constitute a violation of Informational privacy, while bodily privacy can be invaded through deepfaking physical consent.
WHAT INDIA CAN LEARN FROM GLOBAL APPROACHES
With an increase in the number of deepfake offences, it is not merely an extension of cybercrime; it is a distinct threat that requires a separate dedicated legal framework, especially for a country like India, where there is an increase in these offences day by day, which are affecting the public on a very large scale. The Indian Constitution is considered one of the finest constitutions in the world and is a comprehensive document, as its various parts and systems have been adopted from the legal systems and constitutions of around the globe. So, with a need for a dedicated enactment, India can again learn from the benchmark laws from around the globe and amend the provision as per its needs.
- The foremost need is a clear definition of the term “deepfake”. A statutory definition would enhance consistency in enforcement and judicial interpretation.
- The need for defining explicit deepfakes as in the U.S. state statutes (California, Texas, Virginia), where sexual offence laws define deepfakes as distinct acts of impersonation or manipulation.
- There must be clear labelling of AI-generated or manipulated media, ensuring that viewers can identify synthetic content. India can adopt similar transparency obligations of the EU to require platforms and AI developers to clearly mark or watermark synthetic content.
- India can adopt a model for the criminalisation of transmitting sexual material that depicts another person, aligning with other sexual offences that deal with obscenity.
- Being the largest democracy in the world, it must be the responsibility of the Indian legal system to prohibit the publication of online election advertising containing certain digitally generated or manipulated content about candidates, to avoid the spread of fake and manipulative content.
CONCLUSION
Deepfakes show how law often lags behind technology, leaving truth and identity vulnerable in a world of digital illusions. For India, this is not just a legal challenge but a constitutional test of the promise of dignity and privacy in the age of AI. As the world experiments with regulation, India must craft its own balance that protects individuals from digital harm without silencing creativity. The goal is simple yet urgent: to make sure technology serves humanity, not manipulates it.
[1] Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v John Doe and Others (Bombay HC, Interim Application (L) No 33184 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No 32986 of 2025, 15 October 2025, Arif S Doctor J).
[2] Government Accountability Office, Science & Tech Spotlight: Deepfakes (GAO Report GAO-20-379SP, February 2020) https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-379sp (accessed 7 November 2025)
[3] McAfee Labs, The State of the Scamiverse 2025 (January 2025) https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/McAfee_State-of-the-Scamiverse-2025.pdf (accessed 8 November 2025).
[4] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.(2017) 10 SCC 1
[5] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021
[6] California Assembly Bill 602 (2019)
[7] California Assembly Bill 730 (2019)
[8] United States Congress, DEEPFAKES Accountability Act of 2023, H.R. 5586, 118th Congress (2023) https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5586in,in/text (accessed 8 November 2025).
[9] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act) [2024] OJ L 2024/1689, art 50.
[10] Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2022 on the Digital Services Act (DSA) [2022] OJ L 207/1
[11] Contact corporateName=Commonwealth PAHC Act, 2600;, “Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024” (January 29, 2025) <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd081> (accessed on 8 November 2025)
[12] Parliament of Singapore, “Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill” (2024) legal <https://www.parliament.gov.sg/docs/default-source/bills-introduced/elections-(integrity-of-online-advertising)-(amendment)-bill-29-2024.pdf> (accessed on 9 November 2025framework)
[13] Information Technology Act, 2000, s 66D, 66E
[14] Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 219, 356
[15] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.(2017) 10 SCC 1
