AI- Generated Deepfakes and Women's Dignity

“Freedom cannot be achieved unless women have been emancipated from all forms of oppression.”

Artificial Intelligence has emerged as one of the most transformative technologies of the digital age. From healthcare and education to entertainment, communication, and commerce, AI is increasingly becoming part of everyday life. Among its most remarkable developments is generative artificial intelligence, which can create highly realistic photographs, videos, voices and other forms of digital content that may be difficult to distinguish from authentic material. While these technological developments offer considerable opportunities for innovation, they have simultaneously created new forms of harm to society. One of the most disturbing manifestations of this problem is the use of AI to create sexually explicit or intimate representations of individuals without their knowledge or consent. Women, in particular, have increasingly become the targets of such digitally fabricated sexual content.

The term “deepfake” is commonly used to describe digitally manipulated or artificially generated media in which a person’s face, body, voice or other identifying characteristics are altered or reproduced through sophisticated computational techniques, and the technology itself is not inherently unlawful; it may be used for legitimate artistic, educational and commercial purposes. The legal and ethical difficulty arises when the technology is employed to impersonate, humiliate, sexually exploit, threaten or deceive an individual. The most concerning category is the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes. An ordinary photograph of a woman obtained from a social-media account or another publicly accessible source can be manipulated to make it appear as though she is nude or participating in a sexually explicit act. More advanced generative AI systems may create an entirely artificial intimate image without any original photograph of the woman’s body ever having existed. In either situation, the victim may never have consented to the creation, possession, or dissemination of such material. Yet once the fabricated content is circulated, the distinction between reality and fiction may become almost irrelevant to the victim. Family members, friends, colleagues or strangers may encounter the material and believe it to be genuine, resulting in humiliation, anxiety, reputational damage and fear that are therefore very real even though the underlying sexual event never occurred. This phenomenon exposes a significant weakness in traditional approaches to digital sexual abuse. Earlier forms of image-based abuse generally involved an authentic photograph or video that had been secretly obtained, stolen or distributed without permission. Deepfake technology changes the nature of the harm because an offender can manufacture an intimate representation from material that was never intimate in the first place. Consequently, the absence of an authentic sexual photograph cannot be treated as the absence of injury. The law must increasingly focus not merely upon whether an image is real but upon whether an individual consented to being represented in a particular sexual manner. Women have historically faced sexual objectification, harassment, intimidation and image-based exploitation, and now the digital technologies are reproducing these inequalities in new forms; women are disproportionately targeted by harmful deepfake content, and this pattern is associated with misogyny, sexism, objectification and gendered power structures.

A sexually explicit deepfake can therefore become more than an offensive image. It may be used as a means of revenge following the breakdown of a relationship, retaliation against a woman who rejects unwanted advances, intimidation of a journalist or activist or an attempt to undermine the credibility of a woman in public life. Artificial intelligence may create a technologically false representation, but the violation experienced by the person represented can be profoundly real; therefore, India must ensure that the digital age does not create a space where technological sophistication becomes a means of escaping legal and moral accountability.

AI- Generated Deepfakes and the Transformation of Digital Sexual Abuse

The emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence has fundamentally altered the nature of sexual abuse in the digital environment. Earlier forms of online sexual exploitation generally depended upon obtaining an authentic photograph, video or other intimate material of the victim. The offender might steal a private image, secretly record an individual or distribute material that had originally been shared within a relationship. Through face-swapping, synthetic image generation and other forms of digital manipulation, an ordinary photograph can be transformed into apparently explicit material within a very short period of time. This transformation is significant because it separates sexual representation from sexual reality. A woman may never have participated in the conduct shown in a manipulated video, yet viewers may perceive the representation as authentic. The victim consequently faces the social and psychological consequences of an event that never occurred, and the accessibility of these technologies has further intensified the problem. Sophisticated digital manipulation was once associated primarily with technically skilled individuals and specialised software, but Generative AI has progressively reduced that barrier. A person with limited technical knowledge may now be able to manipulate publicly available photographs or create synthetic representations using readily accessible applications. This development has transformed deepfake abuse from a relatively specialised technological threat into a potentially widespread form of digital exploitation.

Sexual deepfakes are particularly concerning because women are disproportionately exposed to this form of abuse. Deepfake technology can therefore reproduce existing forms of gender-based violence while giving perpetrators a new mechanism through which to exercise humiliation and control. A fabricated sexual image may be created as an act of revenge, harassment, intimidation or retaliation rather than merely for entertainment or sexual gratification and the consequences are intensified by the speed at which digital material can circulate. Once a manipulated image or video is uploaded, it can be copied, downloaded, forwarded and reposted across multiple platforms. The victim may discover the material only after it has reached a substantial audience; even when the original post is removed,d duplicate versions may remain elsewhere. Consequently, digital sexual abuse possesses a degree of persistence that distinguishes it from many conventional forms of harassment. Another important transformation concerns the meaning of privacy. A victim does not necessarily need to possess a private photograph for her privacy to be violated; an ordinary photograph uploaded publicly may become the raw material for an artificial sexual representation. Thus, the crucial issue is not simply whether the original photograph was private but whether the subsequent use of the person’s identity was authorised, and public visibility cannot logically be equated with unlimited consent. This distinction also exposes limitations in traditional legal concepts of image-based sexual abuse. Laws framed around the unauthorised distribution of authentic intimate photographs may not adequately capture an entirely fabricated sexual image. In a deepfake case, the victim may have no original intimate material to recover, yet the harm to her dignity and reputation may be substantial.

Legal regulation must consequently shift from protecting only private images to protecting individuals against non-consensual sexual representations of their identities; the transformation is therefore not merely technological; it is legal and social. Deepfakes challenge conventional assumptions about authenticity, evidence, privacy and consent. They demonstrate that digital sexual abuse can occur without physical contact, without an authentic intimate photograph and sometimes without the victim ever knowing that her image has been manipulated. The central challenge for Indian law is consequently to recognise that the absence of a real sexual event does not eliminate the reality of the harm. When AI is used to manufacture a sexual representation of an identifiable woman without her consent, the violation lies in the unauthorised appropriation and sexualisation of her identity. As generative technologies become increasingly sophisticated, the legal protection must evolve accordingly, ensuring that technological innovation does not become a means of escaping accountability for digital sexual abuse.

Women as the Primary Targets of Sexual Deepfake Abuse

The increasing misuse of artificial intelligence for creating sexually explicit deepfakes has acquired a distinctly gendered character. Although synthetic media can be used against any individual, women have emerged as particularly vulnerable targets of non-consensual sexual manipulation; this pattern cannot be explained solely by the availability of technology. It is closely connected with longstanding social attitudes concerning women’s bodies, sexuality, privacy and public behaviour. Deepfake technology has effectively provided a new digital mechanism through which existing forms of sexual harassment, humiliation and gender-based control can be reproduced.

One of the most troubling aspects of sexual deepfake abuse is that a woman’s ordinary digital presence can become the starting point for exploitation. Photographs shared on social-media platforms, professional websites or other public forums may be appropriated and transformed into sexually explicit representations. The woman may have exercised complete care regarding her actual photographs and may never have created intimate material herself. Nevertheless, artificial intelligence can create a false association between her identity and sexual conduct. The gendered character of this abuse becomes particularly evident when deepfakes are used as instruments of punishment or retaliation. A woman who rejects an unwanted romantic proposal, ends a relationship or refuses sexual advances may become the target of fabricated intimate content. Similarly, women who express controversial opinions or occupy visible positions in professional, political or social spheres may face sexualised digital attacks designed to undermine their credibility. In such circumstances, the explicit image is not simply content, but it becomes a weapon intended to shame, silence or intimidate. The consequences can be especially severe in societies where women’s perceived sexual behaviour remains closely associated with family reputation and social morality even when relatives or colleagues are informed that an image is fabricated the victim may still experience suspicion, embarrassment or social isolation she may be forced to repeatedly prove that something never happened. This reverses the proper allocation of responsibility; instead of the perpetrator being required to justify the unlawful conduct, the victim is placed under pressure to defend her character. A victim may experience fear regarding who has seen the material, whether copies continue to exist and whether the content could resurface in the future. For some women, the experience may result in withdrawal from social-media platforms or reduced participation in professional and public spaces, creating a broader societal concern. If women begin restricting their online presence because they fear that their photographs may be sexually manipulated, the digital technology indirectly contributes to unequal participation. Women should not be required to abandon visibility to protect themselves from abuse therefore, responsibility for preventing sexual deepfake exploitation must rest primarily upon perpetrators and within appropriate legal limits, upon platforms and technological actors.

Therefore, sexual deepfakes should be understood not merely as a technological misuse but as a contemporary form of technology-facilitated gender-based violence. The central legal concern should be the absence of consent and the unauthorised sexualisation of a woman’s identity. A photograph being publicly accessible does not amount to permission for sexual manipulation. Protecting women in the digital environment consequently requires a legal approach that treats dignity, autonomy, privacy and consent as fundamental rights rather than as secondary considerations in the regulation of emerging technology.

Real Stories of Deepfake Abuse in India and the Expanding Threat

The threat posed by AI-generated deepfakes in India is no longer a hypothetical concern; it has entered public discourse through incidents in which the faces and identities of women were digitally manipulated and circulated without their consent. These incidents demonstrate how rapidly synthetic sexual content can move from an act of digital manipulation to a widespread violation of privacy, dignity and reputation. More importantly, they reveal that the problem extends beyond celebrities and can potentially affect any woman whose photograph or other identifying material is available in the digital environment.

One of the most widely discussed incidents involved actor Rashmika Mandanna, whose face was digitally superimposed onto a video featuring another woman. The manipulated video circulated extensively on social media platforms and created the false impression that Mandanna herself appeared in the footage. The incident attracted considerable public attention because of its realistic appearance and the speed with which it spread. It also generated a broader debate in India concerning the misuse of artificial intelligence, the responsibility of online platforms, and the need for stronger safeguards against digitally fabricated content.

A similar concern arose following the circulation of manipulated content involving Alia Bhatt; her image was digitally altered and incorporated into sexually suggestive material, demonstrating how easily the identity of a well-known woman can be appropriated and placed into circumstances in which she never participated. The incident reinforced concerns that deepfake technology can be used not simply to mislead viewers but to sexualise a real person without consent. These high-profile cases, however, represent only the visible dimension of a much larger problem. Even ordinary women may also become victims without receiving comparable public attention who reject unwanted advances or end a relationship may face threats that artificially generated intimate material will be circulated to the family or employer. Such incidents can remain hidden because victims may hesitate to approach authorities due to embarrassment, fear of social judgment or concern that reporting the material will cause further dissemination. The expanding threat is intensified by the accessibility of generative AI; the creation of realistic synthetic content no longer necessarily requires advanced technical expertise. As these tools become easier to access, the potential number of perpetrators and victims is increasing, which has expanded their misuse and its consequences, including harassment, intimidation, psychological distress, reputational injury and sextortion.

Another serious concern is the speed and persistence of digital circulation; once a deepfake is uploaded, it may be downloaded, copied, forwarded and reposted across different platforms. Removing the original material therefore does not necessarily eliminate every duplicate. A victim may continue to fear that the content could reappear months or years later. The Indian experience consequently demonstrates that deepfake abuse is not merely a problem of technological deception, but also an emerging form of digital sexual violence capable of affecting dignity, privacy, reputation and personal autonomy. The incidents involving public figures have provided visible warnings, but the expanding threat lies in its potential to reach ordinary women who may have fewer resources to defend themselves. India must therefore move towards a legal and technological framework in which rapid reporting, removal, evidence preservation, victim protection and accountability operate together. The increasing sophistication of AI makes such reform not merely desirable but increasingly urgent.

A Face Without Permission: The Absence of Consent

Consent lies at the heart of an individual’s right to control the use and representation of their identity. In the context of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, this fundamental principle is frequently disregarded. A woman’s face may be taken from an ordinary photograph and digitally placed onto sexually explicit content without her knowledge, participation or approval. The resulting image may be technologically fabricated, but the violation of personal autonomy is genuine. The fact that an image is publicly available cannot be treated as unlimited permission for its subsequent use. When a woman uploads a photograph to a social-media platform, her consent is ordinarily confined to the context in which she has chosen to share it. It does not amount to consent for her face to be transformed into an intimate or sexually explicit representation. The distinction between access to an image and consent to its use is therefore crucial in determining the legal character of deepfake abuse. Deepfake technology further complicates the conventional understanding of image-based sexual abuse because the victim may never have created an intimate image in the first place. An entirely artificial representation can be generated using an ordinary facial photograph. Consequently, protection should not depend upon proving that an authentic private image existed before the abuse; instead, the focus must be placed upon the unauthorised sexual representation of an identifiable person.

The absence of consent can also extend to threats and coercion; an offender may threaten to create or distribute a fabricated intimate image unless the victim provides money, additional photographs or complies with personal demands. Such conduct can cause fear and psychological distress even before the material is actually circulated. A consent-centred legal approach must therefore recognise that a woman’s digital identity does not become public property merely because her photograph is accessible online. Consent must remain specific, informed and voluntary. Protecting this principle is essential to safeguarding dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy in an environment where artificial intelligence can reproduce a person’s likeness without their permission.

Beyond the Screen: The Real- World Harm of Sexual Deepfakes

The consequences of sexual deepfakes do not remain confined to the digital space. What may appear to an offender as an artificial image or manipulated video can become a deeply personal and lasting experience of violation for the woman whose identity has been appropriated. The central difficulty is that the content may be fictional, but the individual subjected to it is real, and the deepfake abuse can produce psychological, reputational, social and professional consequences for victims.

One of the most immediate consequences is the loss of personal control as the victim may suddenly discover that her face or identity has been associated with sexual conduct that she never experienced. This can generate feelings of humiliation, helplessness and vulnerability. The victim may also remain uncertain about the extent to which the material has circulated, who has accessed it and whether copies continue to exist. Such uncertainty can make the experience particularly difficult to overcome, and at the same time, the psychological impact may extend well beyond the initial discovery. A woman may become anxious about using social-media platforms, sharing photographs or appearing in public digital spaces. She may begin to question whether ordinary aspects of her online identity can be safely maintained. In this manner, deepfake abuse can gradually restrict an individual's freedom to participate in digital life.

Reputational injury presents another serious consequence as the fabricated sexual representation can create a false association between the victim and conduct that never occurred. Even where the material is subsequently identified as manipulated, the initial impression may already have reached a substantial audience. Friends, relatives, classmates, colleagues or professional contacts may encounter the content before its falsity is established, and the burden of correcting the false representation consequently falls upon the victim.

The professional consequences can be particularly significant for women whose careers depend upon credibility and public trust. Teachers, lawyers, journalists, academics, public representatives and other professionals may face embarrassment or damage to their professional standing when fabricated sexual material is circulated within their professional networks. Deepfakes can further become instruments of intimidation and coercion. An offender may use fabricated intimate content to threaten a victim, demand money, seek additional images or force compliance with unwanted demands, and the harm is therefore multidimensional. Sexual deepfakes can affect a woman’s mental well-being, social relationships, professional identity and sense of security simultaneously. Legal responses must consequently move beyond the narrow objective of removing unlawful content. Effective protection must also recognise the victim’s dignity, provide accessible remedies, preserve evidence, prevent repeated circulation and ensure that the person responsible is held accountable. The real-world impact of a sexual deepfake demonstrates why digital sexual abuse must be treated as a serious violation of human dignity rather than dismissed as merely fabricated content.

Women’s Dignity, Privacy and Autonomy under the Constitution

The constitutional implications of AI-generated sexual deepfakes are closely connected with the fundamental values of dignity, privacy, personal liberty and individual autonomy. Although the Constitution of India was framed long before the emergence of artificial intelligence, its protection of human dignity provides a sufficiently broad foundation to address contemporary forms of technological harm. The increasing use of AI to create unauthorised sexual representations of women therefore raises important questions concerning the extent to which constitutional rights continue to operate in the digital environment.

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and judicial interpretation has expanded this protection beyond mere physical existence; the right to live with dignity forms an essential component of Article 21. Sexual deepfakes directly challenge this principle because they subject an identifiable woman to an intimate representation that she neither created nor authorised. The fact that the representation is digitally fabricated does not remove the indignity experienced by the individual concerned. The constitutional recognition of the right to privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India further strengthens this protection. Privacy encompasses more than secrecy; it is closely associated with personal autonomy, decisional freedom and control over aspects of one’s identity and personal life. In the context of deepfakes, this principle becomes particularly relevant when a woman’s identity is appropriated and transformed into sexual content without her permission. A woman who voluntarily uploads a photograph online does not thereby surrender every legal interest associated with that photograph; her decision to make an image accessible for one purpose cannot automatically be treated as permission for its manipulation into sexually explicit material. Access to an image and consent to its sexual use are fundamentally different concepts. Deepfake abuse may also implicate the constitutional commitment to equality under Article 14, particularly because women are disproportionately subjected to sexualised digital attacks. When such technology is used to intimidate women, silence their voices, or discourage their participation in professional and public spaces, the consequences extend beyond individual privacy and affect substantive equality. The constitutional framework must therefore respond to deepfake abuse through a dignity-centred approach. Protecting women from non-consensual sexual representations is not merely a matter of regulating emerging technology; it is part of protecting their ability to exercise autonomy, maintain personal dignity and participate freely in society. The challenge before Indian law is to ensure that technological innovation remains compatible with the constitutional promise that every individual is entitled to dignity, privacy and personal liberty.

India’s Fragmented Legal Framework for Deepfake Abuse

India presently lacks a dedicated and comprehensive legislation dealing specifically with AI-generated deepfake abuse. Instead, victims are required to rely upon a combination of provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Information Technology Rules, 2021 and general criminal-law provisions. Although these laws can address several aspects of digital abuse, their fragmented nature creates uncertainty when applied to non-consensual sexual deepfakes.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 remains one of the principal legislative instruments available in such cases. Section 66E addresses the violation of privacy through the capture, publication or transmission of images of the private area of a person without consent. Sections 67 and 67A deal respectively with obscene material and material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct in electronic form. These provisions may become relevant where an AI-generated image or video is sexually explicit and is transmitted or published electronically. However, the difficulty arises where the manipulated material does not originate from an actual private photograph. A deepfake may create an entirely artificial sexual representation using an ordinary photograph of the victim. The legal framework must therefore accommodate harm arising from synthetic representation rather than only the disclosure of genuine intimate material.

Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, which concerns cheating by personation through a computer resource or communication device, may also apply in circumstances where artificial media is used to deceive another person. Yet sexual deepfake abuse does not always involve cheating or obtaining a monetary or other benefit through impersonation; its purpose may instead be humiliation, revenge, sexual harassment or intimidation. Consequently, the provision cannot independently capture the full nature of the harm. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 constitute another important component of India’s regulatory response. They impose due-diligence obligations upon intermediaries and provide mechanisms for dealing with unlawful or harmful content; such obligations are particularly important in deepfake cases because rapid removal can limit further circulation. Nevertheless, content removal is primarily a remedial mechanism and does not by itself address the conduct of the person who created the material. Moreover, once content has been copied and redistributed across multiple platforms, removing the original upload may not eliminate its wider circulation. General criminal-law provisions may additionally become relevant depending upon the facts of an individual case.

Deepfake abuse may be accompanied by threats, intimidation, extortion, harassment, impersonation or reputational attacks; such provisions can therefore supplement technology-specific legislation. However, forcing every deepfake incident into pre-existing categories may overlook the distinctive feature of synthetic sexual abuse, like the unlawful creation of a sexual representation of an identifiable person without consent. Existing legal provisions do not establish a single technologically neutral offence specifically addressing the creation and dissemination of non-consensual synthetic sexual representations. The distinction between an ordinary publicly available photograph and consent to its sexual manipulation therefore requires clearer legal recognition. Public availability of an image should not be equated with permission to transform that image into sexually explicit content, and the fragmented framework also creates practical difficulties for victims. A victim may need to identify the appropriate legal provision, approach law-enforcement authorities, report the content to platforms and simultaneously attempt to preserve digital evidence. For individuals already experiencing humiliation and psychological distress, navigating multiple mechanisms can itself become burdensome.

India’s existing laws therefore provide important but incomplete protection; the challenge is not simply to enact more offences but to create a coherent framework that recognises non-consensual synthetic sexual representation as a distinct form of digital harm. Such a framework should combine criminal accountability with rapid takedown mechanisms, evidence preservation, victim confidentiality, compensation and accessible remedies. As generative AI continues to develop, Indian law must ensure that technological novelty does not create a legal vacuum in which violations of dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy remain inadequately addressed.

Breaking the Silence: Media Responsibility and Public Awareness in the Age of Deepfake Abuse

The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed digital communication, but it has also created new forms of abuse, particularly through deepfakes. Deepfake technology can manipulate images, videos and audio to create highly realistic but false content. Its misuse for sexualised content, impersonation, harassment and character assassination disproportionately threatens women and undermines their dignity, privacy and reputation. In this environment, the media has a crucial responsibility: news organisations and digital platforms must report deepfake incidents ethically without repeatedly displaying or linking to abusive material. Sensational headlines, victim-blaming narratives or unnecessary identification of survivors can further amplify harm. Media reporting should instead focus on the nature of the technology, legal remedies, platform accountability and support available to victims. Verification of digital content before publication is equally essential to prevent misinformation and secondary victimisation.

Public awareness is another essential defence, as we, the individuals, must understand that digitally altered content may appear authentic while being completely fabricated. Schools, universities, workplaces and civil-society organisations should promote digital literacy, consent, privacy awareness and responsible online behaviour. Users should also know how to report abusive content and preserve evidence for appropriate legal action. The Indian legal framework provides several remedies through laws relating to privacy, obscenity, cyber offences, defamation and the protection of women and children. However, technological developments often move faster than legal enforcement; it requires effective prevention and cooperation between legislators, law-enforcement agencies, technology platforms, media organisations and citizens. Ultimately, combating deepfake abuse is not merely a technological or legal challenge, but it is a question of human dignity and social responsibility. Responsible journalism can break the cycle of sensationalism, while informed citizens can challenge the normalisation of digital abuse. A safer digital society requires not only stronger laws, but also ethical media practices, effective enforcement and widespread public awareness.

The Urgent Need for Legal Reform in India: A Proposed Framework

India should consider introducing a specific legal framework dealing with non-consensual synthetic intimate and sexual content. The proposed offence should be technology-neutral and should cover the intentional creation, publication, transmission or knowing dissemination of synthetic or materially manipulated content depicting an identifiable person in a sexually explicit or intimate manner without that person’s consent. The definition should include both manipulated and entirely AI-generated material at the same time; the law should also recognise threats to create or distribute such material, particularly where the threat is used for extortion, harassment, intimidation or coercion. Aggravated punishment may be appropriate where the victim is a child, where the offender is a former intimate partner, where the conduct is repeated, where it is undertaken for commercial gain or where it forms part of coordinated harassment.

A new framework should not rely exclusively upon criminal punishment; the victims also require immediate remedies. There should therefore be an expedited mechanism through which victims can seek removal or restriction of unlawful content. Courts or authorised mechanisms should have the ability to issue urgent directions where continued circulation creates a serious risk of harm. Compensation should also be available to the victim because the consequences of deepfake abuse include psychological treatment costs, professional losses and reputational injury. Criminal punishment alone does not compensate the victim for these consequences.

The legal framework should also establish clear platform obligations because once a platform receives a valid complaint concerning non-consensual sexual deepfake material, it should be required to respond within a defined and reasonable period. The mechanism should balance rapid protection with safeguards against misuse. Repeated uploading of identical or substantially identical material should also be addressed through appropriate technological measures such as digital hashes or other content-matching mechanisms. AI developers should be encouraged or required, depending upon the nature and scale of their systems, to implement safeguards against the creation of sexually explicit representations of identifiable real persons. Specialised cyber-forensic units should also be developed to investigate deepfake cases because police officers require training in AI-generated evidence, source tracing, metadata analysis, digital preservation and platform cooperation, and at the same time Prosecutors and judges also require technological literacy because a victim should not have to explain the basic operation of generative AI to a police officer or court before her complaint is taken seriously. Sexual deepfake cases should be handled with sensitivity, and unnecessary reproduction of the abusive content should be avoided. The law should also provide access to legal aid and psychological counselling.

International cooperation is equally important, as the deepfake content may be created in one country, uploaded through another jurisdiction and consumed in India. Effective enforcement therefore requires cooperation among law-enforcement agencies and technology companies across borders. However, India should develop a framework suited to its own constitutional and social circumstances rather than simply copying another jurisdiction, and the most important principle should remain consent. A person who has not consented to sexual representation should have a meaningful right to stop its creation and circulation.

The emergence of AI-generated deepfakes has created a profound challenge for the Indian legal system. The technology has changed the nature of digital sexual abuse by allowing offenders to manufacture convincing sexual representations of individuals who may never have participated in the depicted act. Women are particularly vulnerable because deepfake technology operates within existing structures of misogyny, sexual objectification and gender inequality. The public incidents involving Rashmika Mandanna and Alia Bhatt demonstrate the visibility of the problem, but they should not distract attention from the ordinary women who may experience similar abuse without public recognition or institutional resources. India’s current legal framework contains important protections under the Information Technology Act, intermediary rules, criminal law, constitutional privacy jurisprudence and data-protection principles; collectively providing several avenues for intervention. Nevertheless, these laws remain fragmented because they were not developed specifically for an era in which artificial intelligence can generate realistic sexual representations of identifiable individuals within minutes.

India should develop a comprehensive, consent-centred and survivor-centred framework that recognises non-consensual synthetic sexual imagery as a distinct form of digital sexual abuse. The law should provide rapid removal, evidence preservation, criminal liability, civil remedies, compensation, platform accountability and technological safeguards. At the same time, regulation must respect legitimate artistic expression, satire, journalism and technological innovation. The objective is not to criminalise artificial intelligence but to prevent artificial intelligence from becoming a tool for violating fundamental rights.

The constitutional values of dignity, privacy and autonomy provide a strong foundation for this approach. A woman does not lose control over her identity merely because an ordinary photograph of her has been publicly posted, nor does she consent to sexual manipulation merely by participating in digital life; the most important conceptual shift is therefore from authenticity to consent. Deepfake technology has demonstrated that the human body and identity can be digitally reproduced, manipulated and sexualised with unprecedented ease, but technological reproduction does not diminish constitutional personhood. A woman’s face is not public property; her identity is not an algorithmic raw material; her consent cannot be generated by artificial intelligence; and her dignity cannot be dismissed merely because the image is fake. India must therefore move from a fragmented reactive approach to a comprehensive rights-based framework. The ultimate objective should be to create a digital environment where women can participate in public and private life without having to choose between technological participation and personal dignity. The central principle should be remembered that in the age of Artificial Intelligence, Indian law must ensure that the speed of technological innovation never exceeds the protection afforded to human dignity.

The image may be artificial; the sexual representation may be fabricated. The technology may be synthetic, but the violation of dignity is real.

References

Dr Sarigama R. Nair, The Emerging Threat: Deepfake and Women in India, International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), Vol. 12, Issue 5, May 2024.
Constitution of India, 1950.
Information Technology Act, 2000.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
Danielle Keats Citron, Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy and National Security.
Aarathrika Bhaumik, “Regulating Deepfakes and Generative AI in India - Explained,” The Hindu.
Tanisha Saxena, “The Deepfake Gender Paradox in AI’s Moral Maze,” Deccan Herald.
Vikranth Rana, Anuradha Gandhi & Rachita Thakur, “Deepfakes and Breach of Personal Data - A Bigger Picture,” LiveLaw.
Bhumika Pant, “Gendered Deepfakes: The Precarity of Women’s Embodiment in a Patriarchal World,” Feminism in India.
Simran Jain & Piyush Jha, “Deepfakes in India: Regulation and Privacy,” South Asia @ LSE.
Vikas Bajaj, “Revenge Porn Crime Is Escalating Dramatically in India,” The New York Times.