Introduction

Artificial intelligence can now generate realistic photographs, videos, voices and even conversations within seconds. A person can create a fictional character for a meme, recreate a historical scene or generate an entirely artificial image without necessarily breaking any law. The legal position changes, however, when AI is used to manipulate another person’s identity, create intimate material, deceive people, damage someone’s reputation or facilitate another offence. The important legal question is therefore not simply whether content was generated by AI, but what was created, whose identity or information was used, how the content was distributed and what consequences it caused.

Is Creating AI Content Itself Illegal?

There is no general rule in Indian law that makes the mere creation of AI-generated content a criminal offence. A fictional image, AI-generated artwork or synthetic video does not become illegal merely because artificial intelligence was used to produce it. Legal liability can arise when the content or the manner in which it is used falls within an existing offence or violates another legal right. For example, an AI-generated fictional character is fundamentally different from an AI-generated video that falsely depicts a real person committing a crime. The first may simply be creative content, while the second can raise questions of defamation, impersonation and other forms of unlawful conduct depending on the circumstances.

When Can AI-Generated Content Amount to Impersonation?

AI becomes legally significant when a person’s face, voice or other identifying characteristics are used to make another person appear to have said or done something that they did not actually say or do. If someone creates an AI-generated voice resembling a bank employee and uses it to deceive another person into transferring money, the issue is no longer merely synthetic content. Depending on the facts, provisions dealing with cheating and cheating by personation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can become relevant. The same principle can apply where an AI-generated video or voice is deliberately used to deceive another person about the identity of the speaker or actor. The offence would arise from the underlying deception and conduct, not simply from the use of AI.

What If Someone Uses AI to Create a Fake Video of Another Person?

A realistic fake video can create several legal issues depending on what it depicts. If an AI-generated video falsely shows a person accepting a bribe, committing a crime or making a statement that damages their reputation, criminal defamation under the BNS can become relevant where the statutory ingredients are satisfied. Defamation generally concerns making or publishing an imputation concerning a person with the requisite intention or knowledge that it will harm their reputation, subject to the exceptions recognised by law. Therefore, simply labelling a defamatory deepfake as “AI-generated” does not automatically remove the potential legal consequences. At the same time, not every parody, satire or fictional depiction amounts to defamation, because the circumstances, meaning conveyed and applicable statutory exceptions have to be examined.

Can AI-Generated Intimate Images Be Illegal?

The legal risk becomes substantially greater when AI is used to create or circulate sexual or intimate material depicting an identifiable person without consent. The Information Technology Act, 2000, particularly Sections 67 and 67A, deals with the publication or transmission of obscene material and material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct in electronic form. Whether a particular AI-generated image or video falls within these provisions depends on its actual content and the statutory ingredients. Section 66E is narrower and concerns the violation of privacy through the capture, publication or transmission of the image of a person’s private area without consent in circumstances covered by that provision. It should therefore not be described as a general “deepfake law” or as automatically covering every AI-generated image.

What Happens When the Person Depicted Is a Child?

AI-generated sexual material involving a child raises a particularly serious legal issue. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, together with relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, provides strong protection against child sexual abuse material and related conduct. The legal analysis cannot simply assume that an AI-generated image is harmless because no physical photograph of a real assault was taken. Where the material falls within the statutory definitions and prohibited conduct, child-protection laws can become relevant. The age of the person depicted and the nature of the material therefore become critical facts.

Can Creating an AI Nude of Someone Without Consent Be a Crime?

Creating a sexually explicit AI image of an identifiable person without consent can expose the creator or distributor to legal consequences depending on the content, method of creation and subsequent use. If the material is published or transmitted electronically and satisfies the requirements of the relevant provisions of the IT Act, Sections 67 or 67A can become relevant. If the conduct also involves threats, extortion, harassment, stalking, intimidation or another offence, provisions of the BNS can potentially be invoked for that separate conduct. The absence of a real photograph does not automatically make the conduct lawful, but the exact statutory provision must be matched to what actually happened rather than assuming that every AI-generated intimate image falls under one particular section.

Can AI Content Violate a Person’s Privacy?

Privacy provides another legal layer. The Supreme Court has recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right under Article 21. Using a person’s personal information, likeness, voice or other identifying features to create harmful or misleading material can therefore raise privacy concerns, particularly where the information was obtained or used without proper authority. However, Article 21 does not mean that every AI-generated reference to another person automatically becomes a constitutional violation. The purpose of the use, the information involved, the manner in which it was obtained and the harm caused all matter.

Can Someone Be Sued for Using Another Person’s Face in an AI Meme?

A meme does not automatically become unlawful merely because it uses another person’s face. Context is important. A clearly identifiable parody or transformative use can raise different legal questions from an AI image that falsely presents the person in an obscene, defamatory or commercially exploitative manner. Depending on the facts, the affected person could potentially rely on privacy, defamation or personality-rights principles. The legal position can become particularly significant where a celebrity’s identity is commercially exploited without permission or where the material falsely associates the person with conduct that damages reputation.

Can AI-Generated Content Amount to Fraud?

AI can also be used as a tool for conventional financial crimes. A person who clones someone’s voice and calls their relative asking for money, creates a fake video to induce an investment or uses an AI-generated identity to deceive another person is not protected simply because artificial intelligence was used. Depending on the facts, offences involving cheating, cheating by personation, forgery, criminal intimidation or dishonest inducement under the BNS can potentially arise. The relevant section would depend on the precise conduct, because the law examines the deception, intention, representation and resulting harm rather than treating “AI use” as a standalone offence.

What If Someone Only Shares the AI Content?

Sharing can also create legal exposure. A person who did not originally create a deepfake but knowingly forwards or publishes unlawful material can potentially become involved in the offence or face liability depending on the applicable law and their role in the publication or transmission. This is particularly important for social-media users who assume that adding “not my video” or “AI-generated” to a post automatically protects them. A disclaimer does not erase the legal character of unlawful content. The circumstances surrounding knowledge, intention, publication and the specific offence remain relevant.

What About the 2026 IT Rules?

India’s updated Information Technology Rules, 2021 now specifically address synthetically generated information and impose additional obligations concerning the identification and handling of such content by intermediaries. The framework therefore introduces a separate layer of platform compliance in addition to the existing criminal and civil laws that can apply to unlawful content.

This distinction matters because the IT Rules should not be described as creating a blanket criminal offence for every person who creates AI content. The rules impose obligations on intermediaries and other regulated entities, while liability for a particular piece of content can arise separately under the BNS, IT Act, POCSO or other applicable laws.

Does Every AI Post Need to Be Treated as Dangerous?

AI-generated content can be completely lawful. A person can use AI to create artwork, fictional characters, educational material, advertisements or entertainment content without necessarily violating anyone’s rights. The legal risk increases when the technology is used to deceive, impersonate, sexually exploit, defame, threaten, defraud or unlawfully expose another person’s private information.

This distinction is important because treating every AI-generated image as illegal would be just as inaccurate as assuming that AI-generated content has no legal consequences.

What Should a Person Check Before Posting AI Content?

Before publishing AI-generated material involving a real person, the creator should consider whether the person is identifiable, whether their face or voice has been manipulated, whether the content could reasonably be mistaken for genuine material, whether it contains sexual or defamatory content, whether consent was obtained where relevant and whether the post could cause financial, reputational or personal harm. Where the content involves a child, the threshold for caution is substantially higher because specialised child-protection laws can apply.

The Legal Takeaway

Indian law does not currently treat “AI-generated content” as one single category carrying one single punishment. Instead, the legal consequences depend on the conduct surrounding the content. An AI-generated fictional photograph can be harmless. An AI-generated voice used to deceive someone into transferring money can raise cheating or personation offences. An AI-generated intimate image of an adult circulated without consent can raise issues under the IT Act and other laws. Sexual material involving a child can trigger much more serious child-protection provisions. A fabricated video falsely portraying someone as a criminal can raise defamation concerns. Threatening someone with a deepfake can create an entirely different set of criminal consequences.