In September, the police in Kochi arrested a college student, who had allegedly used AI to create lewd images of his teachers and female students. He was allegedly part of a Telegram group where such content was being shared, and police are trying to track other members. The FIR covers incidents between December 2025 and September 2026. A 17-year-old Class 12 student’s Instagram photos were allegedly used to make an obscene AI video, which was sent to her classmates, friends and relatives in the town of Ballia, over a week ago.
None of these women are well known. Not one can go to the Delhi High Court and secure platforms to act within 72 hours like a film star or a yoga guru. There is an FIR and then a long wait for them.
Fast courts for the renowned,
AI misuse cases are now hitting the first court of appeal with the Delhi High Court. Earlier in February, it had banned any unauthorised use of its name, image, voice and likeness by several platforms, in relation to the personality rights of actor Kajol. It had also sent out a similar letter to Google, Meta and X the same month, asking them to remove links that infringed on the content within 72 hours. Former cricketer Yuvraj Singh received an ex parte interim injunction in July before the other party was heard.
Personality rights are the rights to control the use of the name, face, voice and style. No Indian laws explicitly list them. They have been created on an ad hoc basis, stemming from injunctions issued against lengthy lists of websites and accounts.
What an ordinary victim gets
The punishment in the student cases is to be arrested or disciplined by the school. After initial enquiry, the college dismissed the student here in Kochi and the student is charged for Section 67A of IT Act. In the Kottayam case, it was reported that the images were manipulated using artificial intelligence technologies with nearly 1500 images and the case was alleged to be being covered up.
That accountability matters. It does not give victims a clear or quick way of getting rid of all copies, or a clear legal right to her own face. The cost of moving a High Court is high and few students are aware that this is a possibility. Responses to complaints on a platform can be more enduring than the time it takes for a post to circulate, through a platform’s complaint forms, or through cybercrime portals.
The damage occurs in a matter of hours within group chats, corridors in a hostel, or when your name is called by your employer. There is ample evidence that deepfakes target women more than men.
Having also filled a hole, in one legal commentary, the role of the courts is defined as being “a process that is initiated by the courts to protect the digital identity before it can be caught up in legislation. That is, judges are acting as a substitute for a law. Court-created rights are dependent upon who brings the case, who hears the case, and what the court decides. They can never tell to whom they will award if someone does not file.
The fair counterpoint
It’s not a mistake for the courts to take action. In the Ramdev case, the court found that the Ramdev videos and websites on which he allegedly endorsed medicines/cures were prima facie misappropriations. Medical endorsements can do more harm than good for their viewers as well as their reputations.
Here’s another issue. In the world of orders, parody and satire can be a part of the catchment area, and so have been orders in relation to AI deepfakes and meme content. A country that is guarded against attacks should not be the one to be ridiculed by the strong. The new law has to guarantee the same protections of freedom of expression as it does for identity.
What should change
- Equal protection of the law. A civil right in relation to one’s name, image and voice, available to ordinary citizens, subject to reasonable exceptions, including satire, parody, news and criticism.
- Fast takedowns. A time limit on how long it will take people to have the ability to remove synthetic intimate or impersonating content within hours, and real consequences for platforms that take a long time.
- Access, rather than rights. No need to hire a senior lawyer, as legal aid and a complaint process in plain language exist.
- Labelling of AI-generated content, enabling viewers to identify what is created by AI.
Well, whose face is it anyway?
The Indian courts have demonstrated that deepfakes can be easily blocked in no time if the system desires. The question arises: Who will get that speed? A student’s face shouldn’t require a popular or well-known name to be worthy of protection. Until the law changes, only the well-known will be protected against AI.
Dhwani Gandhi is a student of Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur. Views are personal.
Also Read: How the IPL is changing the way India plays and watches cricket