Artificial Intelligence (AI) has unlocked unprecedented possibilities in creativity and communication, but it has also become a double-edged sword. Technologies such as deepfakes, digital forgery, and AI-driven identity theft are eroding trust in digital content and threatening the integrity of individuals and institutions. In India, where social media penetration is vast and the digital ecosystem remains vulnerable, the risks posed by AI impersonation are particularly acute.
Deepfakes are AI-generated videos, images, or audio clips that convincingly mimic real people, often blurring the line between truth and fabrication. Digital forgeries extend this to fake documents, IDs, and credentials. AI identity theft goes even further by misusing a person’s face, voice, or personal details to create fraudulent or defamatory content. Examples range from morphed celebrity videos circulated on social platforms to AI-generated Aadhaar cards employed in scams.
India does not yet have a dedicated “deepfake law,” but existing provisions offer partial remedies. The Information Technology Act, 2000 addresses identity theft under Section 66C, cheating by impersonation under Section 66D, and the transmission of obscene material under Sections 67 and 67A. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides for offences relating to forgery of electronic records and misrepresentation, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 extends to misleading advertisements or endorsements created with AI. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) further secures the constitutional right to privacy, which is directly implicated when AI manipulates resemblances without consent. However, these provisions remain reactive and are often ill-suited to the speed and scale at which AI-generated content spreads.
Recent cases highlight how Indian courts are adapting existing intellectual property and personality rights frameworks to tackle AI misuse. In Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan’s petition against YouTube and Google, the couple sought removal of AI-generated deepfake videos and preventive measures to stop their images and voices from being exploited for AI training. Their plea highlighted the disturbing ease with which explicit fabricated content can proliferate across platforms. Similarly, in Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc. [INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 30382 OF 2025 in COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 30262 OF 2025], the Bombay High Court held that a celebrity’s voice, name, likeness, and persona are integral parts of their identity, and unauthorized manipulation through AI tools constitutes a violation of personality and publicity rights. Importantly, the Court linked this protection to moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, recognizing that AI-driven distortion of a performer’s identity undermines reputation and artistic expression.
Other celebrities, including Suniel Shetty and Arijit Singh, have also secured injunctions against AI platforms misusing their persona. These rulings collectively affirm that personality rights are not isolated protections but flow from moral rights under copyright law, particularly where unauthorized replication of voice, image, or likeness damages an individual’s reputation. Courts have further emphasized the duty of intermediaries such as YouTube, Amazon, and Flipkart to act swiftly upon notice of infringing content and to disclose details of violators.
Despite these judicial advances, significant challenges remain. The creation and circulation of deepfakes are often transnational, making enforcement difficult. Many victims of explicit deepfakes hesitate to report due to stigma, and enforcement agencies often lack sophisticated forensic tools to detect AI-generated forgeries. Courts, while proactive, are compelled to stretch existing provisions, highlighting the absence of a defined statutory offence for AI-generated impersonation.
Hence, India may need to consider comprehensive reforms. These could include introducing specific offences for deepfakes and AI identity theft, mandating watermarks or disclosure tags on AI-generated content, establishing fast-track remedies and takedown mechanisms, and strengthening the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 to cover biometric and identity misuse. Building AI-detection capacity within cybercrime units and courts will also be critical to effective enforcement.
The evolving jurisprudence in cases involving Aishwarya Rai, Asha Bhosle, Suniel Shetty, and Arijit Singh demonstrate that Indian courts are willing to expand copyright and personality rights doctrines to protect against AI-driven exploitation. At the heart of these decisions lies the recognition that consent, dignity, and reputation are inseparable from identity, and no technological advancement can override these fundamental protections. However, judicial safeguards cannot substitute for clear legislative action. To actually protect individuals from AI-enabled identity theft and deepfakes, India must urgently evolve its laws to match the realities of a rapidly advancing digital age.
By Amrita Chowdhury
