Author: Zinniia Manna – Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
To the Point
The rise of deepfakes, digitally altered images, videos and audio, poses unprecedented challenges to the law of torts. Traditionally designed to address harms such as negligence, nuisance and defamation, tort law has always evolved alongside societal changes. Today, deepfakes test the very limits of this adaptability. They have become powerful tools for misinformation, non consensual pornography, fake endorsements and reputational attacks, causing harm not to the body but to dignity, autonomy and psychological well being. In India, where tort law is uncodified and digital wrongs are primarily addressed through criminal statutes, deepfakes expose significant doctrinal gaps, highlighting the urgent need to reassess how tort law can protect individuals in the digital age.
Abstract
Deepfakes represent one of the most complex digital harms of the 21st century, threatening personal dignity, reputation and privacy. As India’s tort law remains largely based on common-law principles and judicial precedent, the challenge of addressing deepfake harms becomes even more pressing. This article examines how deepfakes disrupt established tort doctrines, particularly defamation, privacy and intermediary liability. By analysing Indian and comparative case law, it evaluates the shortcomings of the existing legal framework and identifies the reforms needed to ensure meaningful civil remedies for victims. The article argues that deepfakes necessitate doctrinal innovation within Indian tort law to provide effective protection against digital impersonation and reputational harm.
Use of Legal Jargon
Deepfakes expose critical deficiencies in traditional tort doctrines, particularly those relating to defamation, privacy and personality rights. Tort law historically assumes real-world, human-led acts of wrongdoing. However, deepfakes, generated through advanced AI, machine learning and synthetic media technologies challenge foundational concepts such as publication, falsity, reasonable belief and injurious falsehood.
In India, where tort law lacks statutory codification, courts rely heavily on constitutional principles under Article 21 (right to life and privacy) and common-law doctrines. The emergence of deepfakes strains these doctrines, as the harm inflicted is instantaneous, borderless and technologically concealed. Legal notions such as strict liability, presumed damages, misuse of private information and injunctive relief gain new relevance as courts attempt to adapt traditional frameworks to digital harms.
The Proof
India’s tort law framework, grounded in English common law, was never designed to tackle digital impersonation or AI-generated falsehoods. While criminal statutes under the Information Technology Act, 2000 address certain cyber offences, civil remedies such as injunctions and damages remain uncertain. This lacuna is acutely visible in cases involving deepfakes.
Deepfake victims face multiple challenges:
Proving falsity and harm: Synthetic content often appears indistinguishable from reality.
Identifying perpetrators: Creators frequently hide behind anonymity or foreign servers.
Timely relief: Viral content spreads globally within hours, often before any injunction can be secured.
The doctrinal boundaries of defamation, privacy and intermediary liability are strained when applied to deepfakes. Traditional torts assume a clear link between wrongful act and harm; deepfakes disrupt this link by disguising falsehood through technology and dispersing harm virally across digital platforms.
Comparative jurisdictions such as the US, UK and EU have begun crafting statutory and common-law responses, from privacy torts to the EU AI Act’s labelling requirements. India, however, must develop its own model rooted in constitutional values and judicial willingness to innovate.
Case Laws
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Though not a deepfake case, it provides the constitutional foundation for civil claims involving digital impersonation, dignity and personal autonomy.
2. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
The Court held that reputation is an integral part of the right to life. Deepfakes depicting defamatory acts, political misconduct, or fabricated scandals fall squarely within this protected sphere of reputation.
3. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi (2022)
The Delhi High Court granted broad personality-rights injunctions, preventing misuse of voice, image and name. While not involving deepfakes, the case establishes judicial readiness to protect persona from technological exploitation.
4. Anil Kapoor v. Various Platforms (2023)
The Court issued sweeping “John Doe” orders against unauthorised digital manipulation of the actor’s image and voice, signalling a framework for addressing AI-generated impersonation, including deepfakes.
5. Campbell v. MGN Ltd. (UK, 2004)
The recognition of “misuse of private information” as a distinct tort in the UK provides a model India may adopt to address deepfake-related privacy harms, especially non-consensual sexual content.
Conclusion
Deepfakes expose the limitations of India’s tort framework by challenging conventional notions of falsity, publication and personal harm. Although criminal provisions exist, civil liability remains underdeveloped, leaving victims without adequate avenues for injunctions or compensation.
As courts confront increasingly complex technological harms, they must consider doctrinal innovations such as a tort of digital impersonation, presumed damages for inherently harmful deepfakes and refined intermediary liability. Indian jurisprudence, particularly recent personality-rights cases, demonstrates readiness for such evolution.
By shaping remedies that reflect the realities of viral harm, anonymity, and technological manipulation, India can uphold the tort law principle ubi jus ibi remedium where there is a right, there must be a remedy and reaffirm constitutional values of dignity, autonomy, and reputation in the digital age.
FAQs
1. What is a deepfake?
A deepfake is digitally manipulated content video, audio, or images created using AI to depict individuals saying or doing things they never actually did.
2. Why are deepfakes a tort law challenge?
Deepfakes blur the boundaries of falsity, harm and publication. They can damage reputation, invade privacy and violate dignity, but India’s tort law lacks codified principles for digital impersonation.
3. How does Indian law currently address deepfakes?
Primarily through criminal provisions under the IT Act, 2000. Civil remedies in tort injunctions and damages remain uncertain and dependent on judicial discretion.
4. Are there cases directly dealing with deepfakes in India?
Not yet. However, cases like Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi and Anil Kapoor v. Various Platforms show courts protecting personality rights in ways that can be extended to deepfake harms.
5. What reforms are needed?
Reforms could include:
A new tort of digital impersonation
Presumed damages for inherently harmful deepfakes
Faster and stricter intermediary liability standards
Recognition of misuse of private information as a civil tort
Mandatory labelling or correction mechanisms for synthetic content
References
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deepfake
https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case-law/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-privacy/
https://lawbhoomi.com/subramanian-swamy-v-union-of-india/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/personality-rights-an-examination-of-amitabh-bachchan-vs-rajat-nagi-and-ors/
https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ANIL-KAPOOR-V-SIMPLY-LIFE-INDIA-ORS-PROTECTION-OF-CELEBRITY-RIGHTS-IN-INDIA.pdf
https://blog.ipleaders.in/google-india-private-limited-versus-m-s-visakha-industries-another/
https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2021/07/safe-harbour-protection-for-e-commerce-platforms/
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50
https://www.5rb.com/case/campbell-v-mgn-ltd-hl/
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/election-code/elec-sect-255-004/
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-647/
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1708-86/
