Why India's Law is Losing the Race Against Artificial Intelligence

Author- Aditi Tiwari, National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi

Abstract

In the era of digitalization, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the production, sharing and consumption of digital content and has created real opportunities in areas such as governance, healthcare, education and commerce. The emergence of generative AI technologies has also paved the way for numerous deepfakes, audio-visual media that are artificially created or manipulated to trick recipients into believing that they are authentic. The rise of deepfakes has highlighted the need for robust legislation in India that better addresses the challenges posed by these emerging technologies.The deepfakes phenomenon has also raised awareness of the lack of adequate laws in India to tackle the evolving threat of deepfakes, especially for conventional cybercrime and online misconduct. Existing policies, laws, and evolving privacy jurisprudence offer some remedies, but they are inadequate to cover the specific issues of misinformation and identity manipulation created by AI technology.

This article looks at the flaws of the existing laws regarding the regulation of deepfakes and other harms wrought by AI in India. It looks at the impacts of synthetic media on election integrity, democratic processes, gender-based online violence, and platform accountability. The article concludes that a balanced approach is required for the safe development of AI, which must be accompanied by regulation, technological safeguards, institutional preparedness, and digital literacy, to ensure that innovation and the protection of truth, privacy, and democratic values go hand in hand.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence; Deepfakes; Synthetic Media; Information Technology Act, 2000; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Platform Accountability; Misinformation; Electoral Integrity; Privacy; AI Regulation.

Introduction

The old saying, "Seeing is believing," no longer applies. With the advent of artificial intelligence, it is the easiest thing to see now.AI has revolutionized the production, dissemination and consumption of information. AI has opened up incredible opportunities in health, education, governance and business, but it has also presented an unprecedented challenge to the truth. Deepfakes, the creation of AI images, videos and sounds that appear to be that of a real person, is one of the biggest legal and democratic threats of the day. From politicians seemingly making inflammatory statements to celebrities becoming victims to explicit content created by AI, to every day citizens having their identity stolen, the implications of such technology are sweeping, pushing their way into the very fabric of law and justice.

Over the last two years, there has been a significant rise in fake news that has been generated by AI in India.In the last 2 years, there has been a tremendous increase in fake news created by Artificial Intelligence in India. Actors, journalists, and public figures are often the recipients of deepfake videos that have gone viral before being taken down. In an era of election campaigns, fabricated political speeches are in circulation and it is getting harder for voters to distinguish one from the other. The law, though, still plays a significant role by means of statutes that are written for a pre-generative-AI digital world.

Current Rules: Outdated Weapons for New Challenges

At the moment, there is no specific law in India that deals with Artificial Intelligence or Deepfakes. Rather, legal remedies are provided under a myriad of provisions in the Information Technology Act (2000), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), intellectual property laws and privacy jurisprudence.

The Information Technology Act has a very significant intermediary liability and cyber offence focus. While laws concerning identity theft, impersonation, and obscene publications might pertain to some cases of deepfakes, none were intended to control the creation of synthetic media via AI.Likewise, cheating, defamation, forgery and offences upon reputation are criminalized by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, these provisions can only penalize individual cases of AI misuse, while not taking into account the particular nature of deepfakes, such as their ability to be quickly created, spread anonymously, amplified by algorithms, and replicated on a mass scale.

This approach is "reactive" and is forcing courts to apply a whole new technological issue to legal categories created decades ago. Victims, investigators, and digital platforms are left in limbo.

When Deepfakes Attack Democracy

Digital communication is being adopted more and more for election campaigns. AI can produce speeches, fake campaign videos and manipulated interviews, which can impact millions of people before they can be fact-checked. When misinformation is debunked, the political effects can take place.

Here's a fact: after a fact is corrected, people often have the first impression of the story that they read, even if that was a deepfake. This means that the legal means to remedy the situation weeks and months down the road are virtually worthless.

Informed citizens make informed choices and that is the key to democracy. When AI makes it more compelling to believe fake political truths than real facts, electoral integrity is threatened.Women remain the primary victims of violence in India.Women continue to be the biggest victims of violence in India.Deepfakes also have a gender aspect to online abuse.

The vast majority of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes are created from images of women.More than 90% of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes are of women. Ordinary people are frequently the targets, but public figures are often targeted as well with the help of photos, which are available on social media.

Unlike traditional cyber abuse, AI-generated abuse doesn't rely on stolen intimate images. When someone's likeness is all that is needed to create explicit material that can ruin a career, a relationship and even a person's mental health.Removal following publication is often the goal of legal action. However, when digital content appears on several platforms, it's near impossible to completely remove it. The Internet is a very unforgettable medium.

What should be the accountability of Platforms?

One issue with technology companies is that they often claim they are just 'intermediaries' and can't keep track of all of the user-generated content. This is a valid concern, but it has become a more massive issue with the advent of AI.

AI systems already exist in many of the major platforms to detect copyright infringements, spam, and terrorist content. Money should be spent to identifying manipulated media, not only in the context of elections, but also child safety, financial fraud, and non-consensual intimate imagery.Certainly there is a constitutional right to free expression. But when constitutional freedom is used as a ploy to deceive the public, however, this is not liberty.

Its goal should never be a blanket censorship. Rather, digital platforms ought to be held to a reasonable standard of due diligence, transparent content moderation processes, timely complaint systems and labelling of AI-generated content when possible.

India's Regulatory Crossroads

The governments of the world have started to understand that AI needs a more coordinated approach in governance and not a piecemeal response in legal frameworks.The European Union has laid out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of AI, which will require transparency requirements for some types of AI-generated content, as well as risk-based regulation. Several jurisdictions are working on compulsory disclosure laws for synthetic media in elections and ads.

In contrast, India continues to have mainly advisory guidelines and intermediary duties. Advisories by the government are desirable, but they don't replace full legislation.The ideal Indian AI legislation must balance innovation and protection against misuse, avoiding over-regulation. The law should explicitly define ‘deepfakes’, set criminal liability for their malicious creation and distribution, provide for quick and easy takedown procedures for victims, include transparency requirements for high-risk AI systems and require watermarking or provenance technologies where technically possible.

While legislation is essential, it is not the only solution.Legislation is only a part of the answer: Building Digital Resilience.Digital literacy needs to be actively encouraged in schools, universities, government agencies and the media. Citizens need to know how to spot dubious information before forwarding it, know what to trust from the credible sources, and that realistic-looking images no longer mean they are real.

There is also a need for the law enforcement and judicial officers to be trained in handling the AI-generated evidence. As the world of synthetic media grows more indistinguishable from real, traditional ways of verifying photographs and recordings might not be enough.

The final step in Jesus' life is to protect truth before it becomes optional.Jesus' final journey is that of protecting truth before it becomes optional.AI isn't "the enemy. It has tremendous potential to enhance Governance, Healthcare, Education, Legal Research and Economic Growth. The threat is not the technology, but the enabling of technology that exceeds laws in development.

India is at a critical juncture in the legal arena. Leaving deepfakes to become an irreversible democratic and social crisis will be a significant error. History of the law has shown that new technologies have been integrated over the years, from telegraph to internet. The same transformation is necessary for artificial intelligence.

Conclusion

AI isn't the "overt threat" to society that it's sometimes portrayed as: it's a powerful technology that can deliver significant social and economic value. However, the current legal framework in India has several limitations when it comes to generative AI and deepfake technologies. Existing laws like the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are largely reactive and piecemeal, and are thus not up to the task of combating harms under AI.

Now the task for policy makers is how to build a governance system that not only protects technology, but allows for the protection of innovation, privacy, democratic integrity and individual dignity. The various international models that are emerging are worth studying by India; one is the risk-based approach that puts transparency, accountability and user protection at the core of regulatory practice. Any future laws should include clear definitions of deepfakes, require obligations from high-risk AI developers and platforms, give victims effective remedies, and promote the use of watermarking and content provenance.

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general informational purposes only. We endeavour to keep all content accurate, updated, and free from any form of misinformation or objectionable material. However, we shall not be responsible for any claims arising out of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or related issues; such responsibility lies solely with the respective authors. If you find any misinformation or objectionable content on this website, please report it to us at: editors.ilw@gmail.com