IJCOPE Journal

UGC Logo DOI / ISO Logo

International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management

A Peer-Reviewed, Open-Access International Journal Supporting Multidisciplinary Research, Digital Publishing Standards, DOI Registration, and Academic Indexing.
Journal Information
ISSN: 3108-1754 (Online)
Crossref DOI: Available
ISO Certification: 9001:2015
Publication Fee: 599/- INR
Compliance: UGC Journal Norms
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer Review: Double Blind
Volume 02, Issue 9

Published on: September 2026

DEEPFAKES AND THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: RETHINKING PRIVACY, REPUTATION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE GENERATIVE AI ERA

VATTEM MURALI KRISHNA

Aurora University

Article Status

Plagiarism Passed Peer Reviewed Open Access

Available Documents

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence has transformed the production and circulation of audio-visual content. Among its most controversial applications are deepfakes—synthetically generated or manipulated images, videos, voices and other media capable of making individuals appear to say or do things that never occurred. Although synthetic media can have legitimate applications in education, entertainment, satire, political communication and artistic expression, malicious deepfakes may seriously interfere with individual privacy, dignity, reputation, autonomy and democratic discourse.

 

India does not presently regulate deepfakes through a single comprehensive statute. Instead, the legal response is distributed across the Constitution of India, the Information Technology Act 2000, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, together with judicially developed principles concerning privacy, dignity, reputation and freedom of expression. The regulatory position has also evolved significantly with the 2026 amendments to the Information Technology Rules concerning synthetically generated information.

 

This article critically examines whether India's existing constitutional and statutory framework is capable of addressing deepfake harms without

creating disproportionate restrictions on legitimate expression. It argues that deepfakes require a rights-based regulatory approach rather than a technology-specific prohibition. The article proposes a constitutional model based on legality, legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, procedural safeguards, transparency, rapid remedies and platform accountability. It further argues that the legal distinction should not be between 'real' and 'synthetic' content alone, but between lawful synthetic expression and synthetic content that causes identifiable and legally cognizable harm.

 

Keywords: Deepfakes, Generative AI, Article 19, Article 21, Privacy, Reputation, Freedom of Expression, Artificial Intelligence, Intermediary Liability, Digital Rights.

 

How to Cite this Paper

KRISHNA, V. M. (2026). Deepfakes and the Indian Constitution: Rethinking Privacy, Reputation and Freedom of Expression in the Generative AI Era. International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, <i>02</i>(9), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i9.158

KRISHNA, VATTEM. "Deepfakes and the Indian Constitution: Rethinking Privacy, Reputation and Freedom of Expression in the Generative AI Era." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 02, no. 9, 2026, pp. 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i9.158.

KRISHNA, VATTEM. "Deepfakes and the Indian Constitution: Rethinking Privacy, Reputation and Freedom of Expression in the Generative AI Era." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management 02, no. 9 (2026): 1-9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i9.158.

Search & Index

References

Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1. Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221. Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637.

Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (Aadhaar) (2019) 1 SCC 1.

 

Ethical Compliance & Review Process

  • All submissions are screened under plagiarism detection.
  • Review follows editorial policy.
  • Authors retain copyright.
  • Peer Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review
  • Published on: Sep 21 2026
CCBYNC

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.

View License
Scroll to Top