LIJDLR

Generative Artificial Intelligence

DEEPFAKES AND GENERATIVE AI IN INDIA: RETHINKING THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL GOVERNANCE

Volume IV Issue III /

DEEPFAKES AND GENERATIVE AI IN INDIA: RETHINKING THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL GOVERNANCE Omkar Acharya, LLM, 2nd Semester,Fakir Mohan University, PG Department of Law, Odisha, (India) Shibanee Acharya, LLM, 2nd Semester,Fakir Mohan University, PG Department of Law, Odisha, (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.286 The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed digital innovation while raising complex legal and constitutional concerns. Among its most disruptive manifestations is deepfake technology, which enables the creation of realistic synthetic audio, video and images capable of blurring the distinction between fact and fabrication. In India, the misuse of deepfakes has raised serious concerns relating to privacy, misinformation, electoral integrity, cybercrime, defamation, intellectual property, national security and gender-based digital violence. While the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provide partial remedies, they do not fully address the regulatory challenges posed by AI-generated synthetic media. This paper critically examines India’s legal framework on deepfakes and Generative AI, particularly in light of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and judicial developments concerning privacy, free speech, dignity and digital governance. Using doctrinal and comparative legal research methods, the study also evaluates international approaches, including the European Union AI Act, the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, and selected regulatory measures in the United States and China. It argues for a constitutionally grounded and risk-based AI governance framework that ensures accountability, transparency and protection of individual rights while preserving technological innovation. The paper recommends dedicated AI regulation incorporating algorithmic accountability, mandatory watermarking of AI-generated content, platform liability and institutional oversight mechanisms. The study contributes to digital constitutionalism by proposing legal reforms aligned with Indian constitutional principles and the evolving digital landscape.

DEEPFAKES AND GENERATIVE AI IN INDIA: RETHINKING THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL GOVERNANCE Read More »

RETHINKING CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 226 FOR GENERATIVE AI- CAUSED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Volume IV Issue I /

RETHINKING CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 226 FOR GENERATIVE AI- CAUSED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS Kaveri, LL.M (Constitutional law and Administrative Law), 2nd Semester, Student at Gujarat National Law University, Silvassa (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.120 It can read faster, think faster, comprehend faster- “Gen- AI” clearly has reduced human effort, a little too much. Gen- AI’s rise in recent times is era defining and as it goes, everything comes with its own unique challenges. To address this, Gen-AI needs to be legislated first, properly regulated. But there needs to be (initially) a practical redressal system for Fundamental Rights Violations caused by Generative AI technology. For this, we do have Article 32 and Article 226, but not without its own grey areas. As GenAI systems, operated by corporate entities, increasingly cause reputational, discriminatory, and financial harms, the existing legal frameworks particularly the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 and traditional writ remedies do not give a complete answer to the problem at hand. The judgement in Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. (2023) has established that Article 19 and Article 21 can be enforced against Private entities, but how does one build a “chain of causation” in Gen-AI fundamental rights’ violations, for aggrieved party to bring several parties into defendant/respondent side. This article posits that the Indian Constitution possesses the inherent dynamism to bridge this gap and our Judiciary can answer these challenges and bring clarity to it, via Judicial Interpretation and some Judicial Creativity. We should evaluate if private entities exercising ‘functional sovereignty’ via GenAI can be brought under an expanded Article 12 ambit. And could the courts recognise a new constitutional tort of AI-based reckless or simple negligence?

RETHINKING CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 226 FOR GENERATIVE AI- CAUSED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS Read More »