THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEEP NOSTALGIA AND AI-POWERED DIGITAL RESURRECTION IN INDIA

ABSTRACT

Deep Nostalgia and AI-powered Digital Resurrection is a technology that restores old photos and videos with the help of AI and presents them in a new and attractive form. This technology can also restore photos and videos of the deceased individuals, giving their family and friends a chance to relive their memories. However, there has been very little discussion on the legal implications of this technology. In India, there are many questions about the legal implications and of the Deep Nostalgia and AI-powered Digital Resurrection, such as violation of privacy, copyright infringement, defamation, and inheritance rights. In this paper, we will discuss the legal implications of Deep Nostalgia and AI powered Digital Resurrection and make the recommendations for its regulation in India. We will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this technology and make predictions about its future.

KEYWORDS :- Artificial Intelligence, Deep Nostalgia, AI-Powered Digital Resurrection, Indian Legal Framework, Digital Persona, Identity Protection, Personality Rights, Deep Nostalgia, Ethical Aspects, Legal Implications.

INTRODUCTION

The legal implications of deep nostalgia and AI-powered digital resurrection in India constitute a multifaceted and intricate domain, encompassing a broad spectrum of issues pertaining to the recreation of deceased individuals’ voices, images, and personalities through the medium of Artificial Intelligence (AI). This subject matter is characterized by a plethora of complexities, including the Indian legal framework, AI applications, digital persona and identity protection, and personality rights, all of which are inextricably linked to the realms of ethics, social impact, and technological advancements.Consequently, a thorough examination of the legal implications of deep nostalgia and AI-powered digital resurrection is indispensable, in order to grasp the full scope of its ramifications and to devise efficacious solutions to address the attendant challenges.”

MEANING

Deep Nostalgia is a technology that restores old photos and videos with the help of AI presents them in a new and attractive form. AI-powered Digital Resurrection is a technology that restores photos and videos of deceased individuals with the help of AI and presents them in a new and attractive form. In India, there has been very little discussion on the legal implications of Deep Nostalgia and AI-powered Digital Resurrection, but it is a very important subject that can have a significant impact on our society in the future. Here are some legal implications that can arise from this technology:

Defamation: Deep Nostalgia and AI-powered Digital Resurrection can lead to defamation. If someone’s photo or video is restored in a false or misleading way, it can be defamation.

Copyright Infringement: Deep Nostalgia and AI-powered Digital Resurrection can lead to copyright infringement. If someone’s photo or video is restored without their consent, it can be a copyright infringement.

Violation of Privacy: Deep Nostalgia and AI-powered Digital Resurrection can lead to a violation of individuals’ privacy. If someone’s photo or video is restored without their consent, it can be a violation of their privacy.

 Inheritance Rights: Deep Nostalgia and AI-powered Digital Resurrection can lead to a violation of inheritance rights. If someone’s photo or video is restored without their consent, it can be a violation of their inheritance rights.

THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF LAW IN INDIA.

New criminal laws have been implemented in India, replacing the colonial-era laws. These new laws, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, are designed to modernize and make the country’s justice system more efficient.The legal education system in India is also changing, with a greater focus on subjects like technology and cyber law. This change will help make future lawyers more competent and competitive. In addition, India is also undergoing a digital transformation, which is enabling virtual court hearings and online dispute resolution. This transformation is helping make the justice system more accessible and efficient. These new laws have several important features, such as Zero FIR, online police complaint registration, electronic summons, and mandatory videography of crime scenes. These features will help make the process of investigating and prosecuting crimes are more transparent and efficient.However, corruption and the slow pace of the justice system are still major challenges in India. To address these issues, the government and judiciary need to work together and take steps to create a more transparent and efficient justice system.

Here are some important points to remember:

3.1. Legal education is focusing more on subjects like technology and cyber law. 3.2. New criminal laws have been implemented in India.

3.3. Corruption and the slow pace of the justice system are still major challenges.

3.4. Digital transformation is making the justice system more accessible and efficient.

3.5. Artificial Intelligence: With the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence, there is

a discussion on its legal and ethical aspects.

3.6. New Criminal Laws: The Government of India has implemented new criminal laws, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These laws are aimed at replacing old colonial laws.

3.7. Digital India: Under the Digital India initiative, issues like data privacy and Cybercrime has become very important. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, is a significant step in this direction.

3.8. Gender Equality: There are several laws and initiatives for gender equality and women’s empowerment, such as the Sexual Harassment of Women at

Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

3.9. Environmental Protection: Laws like the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, are important for environmental protection.

3.10. Cybercrime: Due to the increasing cases of cybercrime, laws like The Information Technology Act, 2000, need to be strengthened.

3.11. Intellectual Property Rights: There are several laws for the protection of intellectual property rights, such as the Patents Act, 2005.

3.12. Climate Change: Courts and governments are actively working on the issue of climate change.

DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023 (DPDP ACT)

The DPDP Act is India’s first comprehensive legal framework for data protection, enacted in 2023 following the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment. The Act took effect as a significant step in recognising both individual privacy rights and the lawful processing of personal data.

Key Objectives and Applicability

The Act applies to digital personal data processed within India, irrespective of whether it was collected digitally or digitized later, and also extends to data processing outside India if done for offering goods or services in India. Notably, the Act does not apply to personal data used for personal purposes or data made public by the individual or under legal obligation².

¹ Ministry of Electronics & IT, DPDP Act, 2023 Upholds Privacy While Preserving Transparency Under RTI (Oct. 27, 2025), Press Info. Bureau Release No. 2158506,

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2158506

² Here’s how you would cite the Drishti article in Bluebook style (assuming you’re citing it as a web source):

Drishti – The Vision Foundation, DPDP Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, Drishti Daily News & Analysis (Oct. 27, 2025),

https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/dpdp-act-2023-and-dpdp-rules-2025

CORE PRINCIPLES AND CONSENT FRAMEWORK

At the heart of the DPDP Act lies the principle of consent as the primary lawful basis for data processing. Under Section 6, valid consent must be free, specific, informed, unconditional, and unambiguous, demonstrated through clear affirmative action by the data principal (the individual whose data is processed). This consent cannot be bundled, coerced, or implied through silence or pre-ticked boxes it must be deliberate and explicit.dpo-india

The Act mandates that data fiduciaries (entities collecting, storing, or processing personal data) must obtain verifiable parental consent before processing children’s data, defined as anyone below 18 years. The Act also prohibits harmful processing and advertising targeting minors. Importantly, data principals retain the right to withdraw consent at any time, with the withdrawal process being as simple as the initial consent-giving mechanism.

RIGHTS OF DATA PRINCIPALS

Individuals possess comprehensive rights under the DPDP Act, including the right to access information about their data, request correction or deletion, seek grievance redressal, and nominate a representative in case of death or incapacity. However, these rights come with responsibilities individuals must avoid filing false complaints or providing false information, with violations punishable by a fine up to ₹10,000.

OBLIGATIONS OF DATA FIDUCIARIES

Data fiduciaries must ensure data accuracy, implement robust security measures to prevent breaches, and notify both the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) and affected individuals if a breach occurs, typically within 72 hours. The Act requires data minimisation collecting only the necessary data for specified purposes and purpose limitation, restricting the use of personal data strictly to consented Purposes.

The Draft DPDP Rules 2025 introduce the concept of “Significant Data Fiduciaries” (digital platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Amazon, Flipkart, Netflix), which face higher compliance obligations than smaller entities, recognising the disparate impact these platforms have on user data. Startups and MSMEs receive graded responsibilities with lower compliance burdens.

DATA SECURITY AND PROTECTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

³ Chaurasiya, Vedant Raj, Consent Management Under India’s DPDP Act: Best Practices for Compliance, DPO-India Blog (June 6, 2025)

⁴ Anahad Narain, Data Processors Under the DPDP Act: Key Compliance Insights (Oct. 1, 2024)

Under the Act, data fiduciaries must take reasonable security safeguards including encryption, obfuscation, masking, and virtual tokens to prevent personal data breaches. Breach prevention carries the highest financial penalty under the Act up to ₹250 crores for failure to protect data. Significant Data Fiduciaries must appoint independent data auditors to conduct periodic Data Protection Impact Assessments, which assess and manage risks to data principals’ rights⁵.

CROSS-BORDER DATA TRANSFER AND CONSENT MANAGERS

The draft rules allow transfer of certain personal data outside India, as approved by the government, requiring notification to data principals at least 48 hours before erasure. Data retention is permitted for up to three years from the last interaction with the data principal or the effective date of the rules, whichever is later. Additionally, Consent Managers (Indian companies with minimum net worth of ₹2 crore) manage collection, storage, and use of user consent in data privacy interactions.

PUTTASWAMY CASE, ARTICLE 21, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

10.1. Landmark Judgment and Constitutional Foundation

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India (2017), decided by a nine-judge Constitution Bench, stands as a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and forms an essential component of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III. This judgment explicitly overruled two previous Supreme Court decisions (Kharak Singh v. State of UP and M.P. Sharma v. Union of India) that had previously denied privacy as a fundamental right⁶.

10.2. Scope and Nature of Privacy

The Court recognised that privacy encompasses several dimensions, including the preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home, and sexual orientation. Critically, the Court affirmed that privacy does not diminish merely because an individual is in a public place privacy attaches to the person as an essential facet of human dignity. This expansive understanding ensures protection extends from intimate personal spaces to contexts involving

⁵ DLA Piper, Data Protection Laws in India (last modified Jan. 6, 2025), DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World, https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/?t=law&c=IN

⁶ Justice K.S. Puttaswamy: A Dedicated Champion of Privacy Rights in India, Passes Away, SCC Online Blog (Oct. 28, 2024),

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/28/justice-ks-puttaswamy-champion-right-to-privacy-obit uary-legal-news/

personal autonomy and dignity.

10.3. Tests for Reasonable Restrictions

While recognising privacy as fundamental, the Puttaswamy judgment clarified that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted based on

compelling state interests, similar to other fundamental rights. The Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of proportionality to evaluate privacy

infringements, establishing three core criteria:

10.3.1. Legal Sanction: Interference must be sanctioned by law with a due legal procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable, free from manifest

arbitrariness.

10.3.2. Legitimate State Interest: The law must be backed by a legitimate and reasonable state interest to justify interference and prevent unnecessary state intrusion.

10.3.3. Proportionality of Means: The method, nature, and quality of interference must be proportionate to the objects, needs, and purposes

sought by the law⁸.

Justice Chelameswar’s concurring opinion proposed a nuanced framework suggesting different tests depending on which fundamental rights intersect with privacy. Privacy violations implicating Article 14 (equality) attract reasonable scrutiny; violations affecting Article 19 freedoms (speech, movement) must satisfy the specified restrictions in Article 19(2); and intrusions into Article 21 rights must meet the “just, fair and reasonable” standard. Notably, certain privacy claims deserve the highest standard of scrutiny, justifiable only by compelling state interest.

10.4. Practical Implications and Evolution

Following Puttaswamy, courts have addressed privacy concerns in contexts ranging from telephone interception (requiring reasonable restrictions) to government surveillance. The judgment has also influenced the enactment of the DPDP Act, which operationalises the privacy rights recognised by the Supreme Court through a comprehensive statutory framework. The Puttaswamy doctrine established that privacy protection requires balancing individual autonomy with legitimate collective interests, setting a constitutional foundation for subsequent privacy legislation.

⁷ Vajiram & Ravi, Right to Privacy: Evolution, Significance, Challenges (Aug. 31, 2025), https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/right-to-privacy/

⁸ Kumari, Shivani, Different Aspects of the Right to Privacy under Article 21, iPleaders Blog (Jan. 15, 2024), https://blog.ipleaders.in/different-aspects-of-right-to-privacy-under-article-21/ ⁹ Bhandari, Vrinda, Amba Kak, Smriti Parsheera & Faiza Rahman, An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Verdict, 11 IndraStra Global 1 (2017),

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/54766/ssoar-indrastraglobal-2017-11-bhanda ri_et_al-An_Analysis_of_Puttaswamy-_The.pdf?sequence=1

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: COPYRIGHT, PERSONALITY RIGHTS, AND DIGITAL CONTENT OWNERSHIP

11.1. Copyright Protection in Digital Context

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 provides automatic legal protection the moment original work is created no registration is required. Under this framework, copyright grants creators exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, modify, distribute, or monetize original work, with infringement enabling creators to sue for damages or financial loss. The Act extends protection across diverse digital formats including videos, music, photographs, blogs, articles, ebooks, software, and source Code¹⁰.

11.2. Penalties for Digital Copyright Infringement

Copyright violations carry substantial penalties: fines ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000 and jail sentences up to 3 years in cases of digital copyright

infringement. Courts increasingly employ faster processes and stronger support mechanisms for digital creators, with faster court orders and takedown notice procedures strengthening enforcement. The rise of Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools including watermarking, encryption, and

blockchain-based tracking provides technological protection layers

complementing legal remedies.

11.3. Fair Dealing and Exceptions

Section 52 of the Copyright Act establishes the doctrine of fair dealing, permitting certain uses of copyrighted material without constituting

infringement. Fair dealing protections apply to uses for personal use, research, criticism, reviews, news reporting, and lectures. However, fair dealing in India is more restrictive than the U.S. concept of fair use; it applies only to specific enumerated purposes rather than a flexible four-factor test. Courts evaluate fairness by considering how much material was used, why it was used, and whether it competes with the original work’s market¹¹.

11.4. Personality Rights in the Digital Era

Personality rights the right to control commercial use of one’s identity

including name, image, voice, likeness, signature, and distinctive attributes are

¹⁰ Aggarwal Associates, How Copyright Law in India Protects Digital Content (2025), https://aggarwalassociates.com/intellectual-property/how-copyright-law-in-india-protects-digital-conten t/

¹¹ The Legal School, Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957: Exceptions to Copyright Infringement, The Legal School Blog (July 31, 2024), https://www.thelegalschool.in/blog/section-52-of-copyright-act

increasingly recognised in India, though not yet codified in a single statute. These rights are grounded constitutionally in Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), with courts expanding this provision to encompass dignity, identity, and reputation. Notably, personality rights transcend traditional intellectual property law by protecting personal identity rather than creative works alone.

Recent judicial developments showcase this expansion. The Delhi High Court granted injunctions to Amitabh Bachchan protecting his name, voice, likeness, and iconic phrases; to Anil Kapoor safeguarding his distinctive gestures; and to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan against AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised use of their personas. These cases reflect India’s growing acceptance of personality rights as intellectual property, particularly for celebrities commercialising their personas¹².

11.5. Digital Identity, NFTs, and Avatar Rights

The intersection of personality rights with emerging technologies presents novel challenges. When individuals’ likenesses are used to create digital avatars, NFTs, or video game representations, complex questions arise regarding who retains the right to profit from digital representations and under what circumstances.

The Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware Technology case exemplifies this tension, raising personality rights concerns in non-fungible token

contexts.ccgnludelhi.wordpress Traditional intellectual property frameworks fall short in protecting digital identity. Copyright law may protect a

photograph as creative work but does not prevent the person captured in that photograph from having their likeness used commercially without consent. This gap has prompted legal professionals and courts to recognise personality rights as distinct from traditional IP, filling the void between privacy law, contract law, and intellectual property law.

11.6. Copyright and AI-Generated Content

The ownership of AI-generated works remains unsettled in Indian law. While the Copyright Act’s Section 2(d)(vi) states that for computer-generated works, the person causing the work to be created is considered the author, this provision creates ambiguity for AI systems that operate semi-autonomously. The critical question of authorship persists: whether AI systems exercise

¹² Centre for Communication Governance, NLU Delhi, Personality Rights and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act: Safeguarding Individual Identity in the Digital Age (Aug. 26, 2024), https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2024/08/26/personality-rights-and-the-digital-personal-data-protecti on-act-safeguarding-individual-identity-in-the-digital-age/

genuine creativity or merely reflect the styles of creators from training datasets. A balanced approach emerging from legal discourse suggests categorising AI- generated outputs as derivative works creative works based on or derived from existing works. This framework requires that data used to train AI systems be obtained lawfully and with consent from original creators, paralleling the requirement that translated or adapted works reference their original sources. However, the perpetual existence of AI systems challenges the traditional copyright protection period of 60 years from the author’s death, raising fundamental questions about the purpose and duration of copyright protection in the digital age¹³.

11.7. Recent Statutory Developments

The 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act expanded fair dealing to include movies and sound recordings, aligning India with global agreements like the Berne Convention and TRIPS. The Act now recognises various exceptions for disabilities and provides safe harbors for internet service providers,

modernising protections to address contemporary concerns around digital piracy and online copyright enforcement. Courts increasingly employ

blockchain-based copyright tracking as a future mechanism for proving ownership and controlling digital content distribution.

CONTENT AND MISUSE

AI powered digital resurrection can be used innocuously or viciously. Following are the areas where AI can be misused and the associated harms can be caused :-

12.1. Non Consensual Revival and VIolation of Independence

Creating an interactive avatar of someone now dead, without his or her consent during life and without family authorization, involves issues of autonomy. People might have religious, cultural, or personal beliefs against digital reincarnation after death. When companies or bad actors recreate a person against their presumed preferences, it violates dignity and the

autonomy interest that Puttaswamy protects. Such creations may extend beyond mere images to realistic voice and conversational replication,

amplifying the sense of violation.

12.2. Psychological and Emotional Trauma to Survivors

While it may bring momentary comfort for some, interacting with an artificial version of a loved one who has died can create serious psychological damage

¹³Sanyal, Nayantara et al., Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Works – Part I, 5 Mar. 2024, Bar & Bench,

https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/intersection-intellectual-property-rights-ai-generated-works part-i

for others: complicating mourning, creating dependency, and even triggering trauma. Unchecked commercialization of grief can be exploitative, ethicists warn. Academic commentators and The Guardian have called for caution, recommending safeguards and sensitive design practices in the development of “deadbots.”

12.3. Fraud, Impersonation, and Financial Harm

It can also be used to commit fraud by a synthetic imitation of a person’s voice and manner to, for example, instruct bank transfers, authorize transactions, or manipulate family members. Criminal law covers impersonation and fraud, but synthetic media creates evidentiary problems: audio/visual “evidence” becomes suspect, and the fact-finder must determine whether a recording is genuine or synthetic. Risk is heightened when synthetic persons are used to obtain money or sensitive concessions.

12.4. Reputation and Defamation

Synthetic content can put words and actions into the mouth of a deceased person that they never spoke, doing harm to reputation or historical record. Defamation law conventionally protects the living, but posthumous

reputational harms may implicate family members, institutions, or the public interest; the law’s net of protection is patchy here.

12.5. Cultural Insensitivity and Religious Offence Representation

Cultural Insensitivity and Religious Offence Representation of the dead is likely to interface with religious norms regarding dying, death rites, and the afterlife or the treatment of ancestors in India’s pluralist cultural ecology. The insensitive recreation could be considered blasphemous or ridiculing a figure, which would exacerbate communal tensions and go beyond individual harm. Thus, legal responses have to harmonize community interests and freedom of religion while protecting freedom of expression. The Guardian 6. Political and Public Interest Misuse Misinformation, manipulation of historical narratives, or posthumous political campaigning are some of the harms when public figures are resurrected synthetically. The regulation of deepfakes becomes necessary to protect democratic processes; existing laws in India do not comprehensively define and prohibit such manipulations.

LIABILITY FOR INJURY: WHO CAN BE CONSIDERED LIABLE?

One of the key legal questions is about the responsibility of various actors: platform providers, AI model developers, data providers (family members), or the end users. The sections below evaluate the possible legal grounds for accountability and associated practical issues.

13.1. Data Fiduciaries under the DPDP Act

Under the DPDP Act, entities that determine the means and purposes of processing personal data qualify as data fiduciaries (data controllers). If an AI firm processes personal data to build a synthetic persona, it will be a fiduciary with obligations of notice, consent (where required), purpose limitation, and security. In cases of any violation under the DPDP Act, affected persons, or their legal representatives, can seek remedies through mechanisms specified under the law. However, the DPDP Act centers on living data principals—its provisions are less explicit on post-mortem data and on harms that are primarily emotional or dignity-based rather than purely informational.

13.2. Contractual Liability and Platform Terms

Platforms commonly rely on clickwrap terms and consent forms; litigation frequently turns on whether express consent for particular uses has been given. Terms of service may disclaim liability, but unconscionable or deceptive practices can be challenged under consumer protection law and common law torts. The enforceability of posthumous consent clauses-for example, “I consent to be digitally recreated after death”-presents novel issues but might be a practical means of compliance.

13.3. Torts, Defamation, and Criminal Law

Where synthetic content involves reputational damage or fraud, existing tort law on various forms of privacy torts or intentional infliction of emotional distress and criminal statutes on IPC fraud, impersonation, IT Act offences can be invoked. Yet courts will face evidentiary and causation problems: how to prove that a specific defendant created or disseminated the synthetic content, or that an interaction with a synthetic persona caused clinical harm. Legislative clarity could lower enforcement burdens.

13.4. Platform Liability and Intermediary Safe Harbour

Under the current Indian regime, intermediaries (platforms that host user content) receive limited safe harbour, provided they follow designated due diligence and content takedown procedures. Policymakers need to provide clarity on whether hosting AI-generated memorial pages or synthetic audiovisuals requires additional obligations, such as prominent labelling, provenance metadata, and expedited takedown for non-consensual posthumous uses. The latter is a precarious balance: overbroad platform liability threatens to chill legitimate speech and innovation, while

under-regulation threatens to leave victims without remedy. Vintage Legal 5. Developer Liability: Models and Explainability In particular, AI model developers who supply pretrained models or APIs could face liability where their models are reasonably foreseeable to be misused for impersonation or

resurrection. Legal doctrines from product liability and negligence may analogize; regulators could also demand risk assessments, safety testing, and “red-team” audits. At the same time, however, imposing strict liability risks stifling model development. Thus, a calibrated, risk-based approach is

preferable.

ETHICAL AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS IN INDIA

Legal interventions cannot be standalone entities but must be imbued with ethical values and cultural sensitivities.

14.1. Dignity, Respect for the Dead, and Familial Autonomy

In many Indian cultures, post-death rites and the memory of ancestors are deeply significant. Digital resurrection that runs against community norms can cause social harm beyond individual distress. Ethical frameworks should emphasize dignity, requesting consultation with the family-especially close relatives-prior to the creation or use of a posthumous recreation. Diversity of beliefs will be such, however, that no one standard will be universally

satisfying; policy needs, therefore, to ensure that transparent consent

mechanisms and opt-out registries are present where possible¹⁴.

14.2. Consent, Authenticity, and Informed Choice

Meaningful consent for future synthetic uses requires clarity as to the nature, longevity, and possible uses of the recreated persona. Consent obtained through dense, legalistic clickwraps fails the ethical test. Companies should deploy layered and clear consent forms, with explicit options regarding the extent of recreation, such as animation only or voice cloning prohibited. Regarding the deceased, advance directives or recorded legacy preferences in a will could be an ethical anchor.

14.3. Psychological Safety and Vulnerable Populations

Vulnerable individuals—children, mentally ill, and grieving—are at

heightened risks. Ethical deployment requires age gating, clinical testing of therapeutic claims, and appropriate warnings of harm, along with restriction of marketing to vulnerable populations. Independent oversight or certification of memorialization services can help protect users from exploitation. The Guardian 4. Collective Memory, History, and Misinformation Digital

¹⁴ Hern, Alex, Digital Recreations of Dead People Need Urgent Regulation, AI Ethicists Say, The Guardian (May 9, 2024),

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/09/digital-recreations-of-dead-people-need urgent-regulation-ai-ethicists-say?utm_source=chatgpt.com

resurrection thus very definitely blurs the line between historical record and narrative recreation. Ethical practice requires provenance metadata, clear labeling of synthetic content, and stewardship to avoid rewriting or

misrepresenting history. In pluralistic democracies like India, there is a public interest in the integrity of historical narratives.

14.4. Collective Memory, History, and Misinformation

Digital resurrection further blurs the line between historical record and narrative recreation. Ethical practice needs provenance metadata, clear labeling of synthetic content, and stewardship to avoid rewriting or

misrepresenting history. In pluralistic democracies, such as India, the integrity of historical narratives is a public interest concern¹⁵.

COMPARATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT (BRIEF)

A number of jurisdictions and scholars have started addressing posthumous digital rights and deepfake regulation. Whereas some U.S. states have statutes governing the commercial exploitation of a person’s likeness after death, right of publicity laws, India does not have an explicit statutory post-mortem publicity right. Elsewhere, policy recommendations emphasize transparency, provenance, consent frameworks, and targeted prohibitions on deceptive impersonation. These comparative lessons underline that India can use a mix of sectoral regulation, consumer protection, and data protection mechanisms rather than a single omnibus statute¹⁶.

SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

What follows are specific legal, regulatory, and policy recommendations for India, framed to be workable and rights-preserving:

16.1. Amend the DPDP Act Rules/Issue Rules Specific to Synthetic Posthumous Content

Treatment of Deceased Persons’ Data: Explain how the DPDP Act and its rules do or do not apply to personal data of deceased persons; provide that a legal representative or designated legacy contact may exercise certain rights of the deceased in the absence of consent or a registered advance directive.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/09/digital-recreations-of-dead-people-need urgent-regulation-ai-ethicists-say?utm_source=chatgpt.com

¹⁶ Indulia, Bhumika, Beyond the Grave: Exploring the Legality of Posthumous Publicity Rights, SCC Online Blog (Oct. 24, 2023),

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/24/beyond-the-grave-exploring-the-legality-of-posthumo us-publicity-rights/?utm_source

Identify the purpose and request consent for synthetic reuse: Any reuse of personal data into synthetic assets of voice or animated likeness, which materially alters the subject’s identity, shall be done with explicit, informed consent. When consent cannot be obtained, processing should be allowed only in narrow, well-defined public interest exceptions, such as in historical research, with appropriate safeguards.

Compulsory Transparency and Provenance: Require metadata labeling of synthetic media-including “synthesized” tags and the identity of the generator-and maintenance of provenance logs for tracking misuse.

16.2. Introduce a Targeted “Digital Resurrection” Code of Practice or Regulation

Certification and Codes: MeitY could issue a voluntary or binding code of practice on memorialization platforms with regards to consent mechanics, marketing restrictions, age gating, retention policies, and minimum security standards.

Ethical Design Requirements: Require user interfaces presenting clear choices, such as animation only/voice cloning/chatbot, along with explicit warnings about psychological risks. Independent ethics review should be required for services offering conversational interfaces that mimic the dead.

16.3. Strengthen Intermediary and Platform Duties

Labelling and Notices: Platforms that host synthetic resurrected profiles should ensure prominent labeling and provide mechanisms for takedowns for non-consensual content with rapid timelines.

Notice-and-Action Procedures: Provide an expedited takedown and redress process for non-consensual digital resurrection, modeled on existing intermediary rules but adjusted for the seriousness of posthumous impersonation.

16.4. Criminal and Civil Remedies for Malicious Misuse

Targeted Offence for Deceptive Posthumous Impersonation: Consider creating a narrowly drawn criminal offence relating to impersonating a deceased person for the purposes of fraud, extortion or public mischief—drafted so as not to chill legitimate artistic expression.

Increased Civil Remedies: Establish tort remedies for unauthorized resurrection (injunctions, damages for mental anguish) and extend defamation

and privacy doctrines where applicable. One might expect the courts to reach a separate “posthumous dignity” interest under tort law.

16.5. Promote Advance Directives and Legacy Preferences

Legal Recognition of Legacy Directives: Recognize advance directives for digital legacy, enabling individuals to specify preferences about posthumous data use in wills or dedicated registries.

Public Awareness Campaigns: Governmental public education on setting legacy preferences and understanding the implications of uploading personal data to AI services. nma.legal 6. Technical Standards and Auditing

Provenance Standards: Adopt the technical standards-watermarking and provenance metadata-which can enable traceability in synthetic media. Encourage research into forensic detection of synthetic content. Third-Party Audits: Require regular independent auditing of all companies providing posthumous recreation services with regard to consent practices, red-team testing, and risk mitigation. SSRN 7. Ethical Review for Therapeutic Use Clinical Oversight: If memorialization services claim therapeutic benefits, they should undergo health-service style oversight such as ethics review, clinical trials, and professional guidelines for use with vulnerable persons.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES

A policy program needs to preclude practical difficulties.

17.1. Balancing Free Expression and Regulation

Any restriction should be narrowly tailored to allow artistic and historical uses, while prohibiting deceptive impersonation and exploitation. Content that is clearly labeled and contextualized should enjoy greater protection. Courts and regulators must apply proportionality tests similar to Puttaswamy when evaluating restrictions.

17.2. Complexity of attribution and enforcement

It may be difficult in some cases to attribute synthetic content to an entity. Provenance metadata and platform logs will be pivotal for enforcement. Data protection authorities and criminal investigators should have powers to subpoena platform records, subject to due judicial oversight.

17.3. Jurisdictional and Cross-Border Issues

Many AI services and hosting platforms are foreign. India needs to pursue cross-border cooperation, insist on local grievance officers for entities serving Indian

users, and use DPDP Act extraterritorial reach to regulate services offered to Indians. MEITY 4. Rapid Technological Change Regulatory design must, in turn, be principle-based and flexible; it must rely on risk-based obligations, rather than technology-specific bans, to avoid obsolescence as generative AI evolves. Independent oversight bodies-DPA and MeitY-should, through rolling guidance and updates,

17.4. Rapid Technological Change

Regulatory design should be principle-based and flexible, relying on

risk-based obligations rather than technology-specific bans. This avoids obsolescence because generative AI will continue to evolve. Independent oversight bodies should issue rolling guidance and updates.

A DRAFT LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY MODEL – SKETCH

Following is a brief outline of the regulatory language and mechanisms that may be considered for rule-making under the DPDP Act or under MeitY’s regulatory power:

18.1. Definition Clause: For the purpose of this Act, “digital resurrection” means processing personal data to create a synthetic or recreated audiovisual, voice, or interactive representation of a deceased or living person in a manner that materially replicates their appearance, voice, or style.

18.2. Consent Requirement: No data fiduciary shall process personal data into a digital resurrection without a) the explicit prior written consent of the data principal; or b) where the data principal is deceased, documented written authorization from a statutory successor or a registered legacy directive. Exceptions limited to research and public interest with safeguards.

18.3. Labeling and Provenance: All digital resurrections shall bear a persistent machine-readable provenance tag carrying date of creation, identity of generator, degree of synthesis, and whether material was created with the consent of the data principal.

18.4. Takedown and Redress: Platforms should implement an expedited takedown system for non-consensual digital resurrection and preserve logs for

investigatory purposes. Intermediaries will be held liable in case of inaction under conditions specified.

18.5. Criminal Provision: A penal provision for knowingly creating or disseminating a synthetic resurrection for use in fraud or to cause serious emotional harm—penalty calibrated to harm.

18.6. Enforcement: DPDP Authority or a concerned regulator shall have powers to investigate, order takedown, impose monetary fines and direct remediation and audits.

This outline is intentionally broad; common threads would be consent, transparency, redress, and selective criminalization in cases of public interest or fraud.

CONCLUSION

AI-powered digital resurrection creates profound possibilities: preserving legacies, enhancing education, and bringing solace. Without careful legal and ethical guardrails, it threatens to erode autonomy, dignity, and social trust. India has helpful building blocks in the form of the constitutional privacy doctrine and the DPDP Act but gaps remain regarding posthumous data, consent for synthetic uses, accountability for platform misconduct, and protection of cultural sensibilities. The potential for actual harm is real and varied: emotional, reputational, financial, or political.

A balanced approach should:

– clarify treatment of deceased persons’ data under data protection rules; – require express, informed consent for synthetic resurrection;

– mandate provenance labeling and transparency;

– provide swift takedown and grievance mechanisms;

– impose narrowly targeted criminal liability for fraudulent misuse; and

– encourage ethical design, audits, and awareness. These measures can protect individuals and communities while permitting innovative, respectful uses of AI to memorialize human lives.

With generative AI moving rapidly, Indian regulators and the judiciary need a balance between principle-based rules, technical standards, and public engagement if they are to meet the commitments to human dignity and autonomy in the digital afterlife.

ANNEX: PRACTICAL CHECKLIST FOR POLICYMAKERS AND PRACTITIONERS

20.1. For Legislators

Draft provisions of post-mortem use of data under the DPDP Act. Create narrowly targeted criminal offenses regarding fraudulent impersonation using synthetic resurrections.

20.2. For Regulators (MeitY/DPD Authority)

Issue a Code of Practice for memorialization platforms. Require provenance metadata and retention logs. Require local grievance officers for services offered to Indian residents.

20.3. For Platforms and Developers

Adopt layered consent and documented legacy directives. Integrate visible labelling for synthetic content. Conduct ethics reviews and third-party audits of memorialization features.

20.4. For Courts

Develop jurisprudence recognizing posthumous dignity interests and authorizing equitable remedies-injunctions, damages-appropriate to emotional and reputational harms.

20.5. For Civil Society

Run awareness campaigns on legacy preferences. Advocate for vulnerable user protections and clinical oversight when therapeutic claims are made.

REFERENCES AND STATUTES

1. Aggarwal Associates, How Cm/intellectual-propertyAmba

/how-copyright-law-in-india-protects-digital-content/

a.

2. Bhandari, Vrinda, Kak, Smriti Parsheera & Faiza Rahman, An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Verdict, 11 IndraStra Global 1 (2017), https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/54766/ssoar-indrastraglobal 2017-11-bhandari_et_al-An).
3. Bhargava, Archita, Deepfake _Analysis_of_Puttaswamy-_The.pdf?sequence=1 (last visited Oct. 27, 2025Technology and Its Legal Regulation in India: A Doctrinal and Comparative Study, Vintage Legal VL (Aug. 12, 2024),

https://www.vintagelegalvl.com/post/deepfake–it-s-legal-regulation-in-india-a-doctrin al-and-comparative-study (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

4. Centre for Communication Governance, NLU Delhi, Personality Rights and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act: Safeguarding Individual Identity in the Digital Age (Aug. 26, 2024),

https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2024/08/26/personality-rights-and-the-digital-pers onal-data-protection-act-safeguarding-individual-identity-in-the-digital-age/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

5. DLA Piper, Data Protection Laws of the World – India (2025),

https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/?t=law&c=IN (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

6. Drishti IAS, DPDP Act 2023 and DPDP Rules 2025, Daily News Analysis (2025), https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/dpdp-act-2023-and-dpd p-rules-2025 (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).
7. Hern, Alex, Digital Recreations of Dead People Need Urgent Regulation, AI Ethicists Say, The Guardian (May 9, 2024),

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/09/digital-recreations-of-d ead-people-need-urgent-regulation-ai-ethicists-say (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

8. Indulia, Bhumika, Beyond the Grave: Exploring the Legality of Posthumous Publicity Rights, SCC Online Blog (Oct. 24, 2023),

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/24/beyond-the-grave-exploring-the-leg ality-of-posthumous-publicity-rights (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

9. Kumari, Shivani, Different Aspects of the Right to Privacy under Article 21, iPleaders Blog (Jan. 15, 2024),

https://blog.ipleaders.in/different-aspects-of-right-to-privacy-under-article-21/ (last

visited Oct. 27, 2025).

10. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Press Information Bureau, Government of India Approves DPDP Rules 2025 (2025),

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2158506 (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

11. Sanyal, Nayantara et al., Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Works – Part I, Bar & Bench (Mar. 5, 2024),

https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/intersection-intellectual-property-rights-ai generated-works-part-i (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

12. The Legal School, Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957: Exceptions to Copyright Infringement (July 31, 2024),

https://www.thelegalschool.in/blog/section-52-of-copyright-act (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

13. Vajiram & Ravi, Right to Privacy: Evolution, Significance, Challenges (Aug. 31, 2025), https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/right-to-privacy/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).
14. Consent Management under India’s DPDP Act: Best Practices for Compliance (Research Paper, 2025).
15. Consent.in, Data Processors in India (2025),

https://www.consent.in/blog/data-processors (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

16. SCC Online Blog, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy: A Dedicated Champion of Privacy Rights in India, Passes Away (Oct. 28, 2024),

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/28/justice-ks-puttaswamy-champion-ri ght-to-privacy-obituary-legal-news/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(a), art. 21.
2. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023). 3. The Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (No. 14 of 1957).
4. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (No. 35 of 2019). 6. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books & Reports

• Bhandari, Vrinda, Amba Kak, Smriti Parsheera & Faiza Rahman. An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Verdict. IndraStra Global (2017).
• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Press Release on DPDP Rules 2025. Press Information Bureau (2025).

Academic & Legal Blogs

• Aggarwal Associates. How Copyright Law in India Protects Digital Content. (2025).
• Bhargava, Archita. Deepfake Technology and Its Legal Regulation in India. Vintage Legal VL (2024).
• Indulia, Bhumika. Beyond the Grave: Exploring the Legality of Posthumous Publicity Rights. SCC Online Blog (2023).
• Sanyal, Nayantara et al. Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Works – Part I. Bar & Bench (2024).
• Kumari, Shivani. Different Aspects of the Right to Privacy under Article 21. iPleaders Blog (2024).
• Vajiram & Ravi. Right to Privacy: Evolution, Significance, Challenges. (2025).
• Centre for Communication Governance, NLU Delhi. Personality Rights and the DPDP Act. (2024).
• The Legal School. Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. (2024).
• Drishti IAS. DPDP Act 2023 and DPDP Rules 2025. (2025).
• DLA Piper. Data Protection Laws of the World – India. (2025).
• Hern, Alex. Digital Recreations of Dead People Need Urgent Regulation, AI Ethicists Say. The Guardian (2024).
• Consent.in. Data Processors in India. (2025).

Research Papers

• Consent Management under India’s DPDP Act: Best Practices for Compliance (2025).