Skip to content
Home  /  Blog
Online Fraud and Digital Arrests

AI-Generated Image: Legal Risks in India

By Adv Shoeb Hakim13 Oct 20257 min read
An Indian woman concerned about an AI-generated image of herself in a vintage saree on her phone, representing legal risks of deepfakes.

Why Adv Shoeb Hakim Considers This Article a Vital Read

The viral explosion of AI-generated imagery, from the ‘Nano Banana’ vintage saree trend to fabricated vacation photos, represents a seismic shift in digital content creation.

This analysis is vital as it moves beyond the novelty to dissect the profound legal and criminal risks embedded within these hyper-realistic fabrications.

For users, creators, and victims alike, understanding the liability surrounding an AI-generated image under India’s new legal framework—including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023—is no longer optional; it is a critical necessity for navigating the modern digital landscape.


The Rise of Synthetic Realities: The ‘Nano Banana’ Phenomenon

An Indian woman concerned about an AI-generated image of herself in a vintage saree on her phone, representing legal risks of deepfakes.
Navigating the fine line between creative AI use and legal violation in the age of synthetic media.

India’s position as the epicenter of the ‘Nano Banana’ trend underscores a massive cultural adoption of AI tools. Platforms like Google Gemini enable users to create stunningly realistic content, such as:

While creatively empowering, this ease of access blurs the line between reality and fabrication, creating a fertile ground for misuse, misinformation, and malicious impersonation.


The Legal Minefield: Criminal Liability for AI-Generated Content

The creation or dissemination of a malicious AI-generated image can trigger serious legal consequences under India’s new criminal code.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:

The legal principle established in cases like Kalandi Charan Lenka vs. State of Odisha, which dealt with cyberstalking and morphing images, remains highly relevant and can be applied to AI-generated deepfakes under the new statutes.


Data Privacy and Consent: The DPDP Act’s Mandate

The ‘Nano Banana’ trend raises significant privacy concerns, as highlighted by Google’s data retention policies.


How to Identify and Authenticate AI-Generated Media

For investigators and the public, verifying the authenticity of digital content is a foundational forensic skill.

Technical Verification Methods:


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is creating a fun AI-generated image of myself illegal?

No, creating an AI-generated image for personal, non-malicious use is not illegal. The legality is determined by intent, consent, and outcome. Using someone else’s likeness without permission, or creating content to defame, cheat, or harass, crosses into illegal territory.

What should I do if I find a deepfake or malicious AI-generated image of me online?

  1. Preserve Evidence: Take screenshots and note the URLs.

  2. File a Police FIR: Report the incident under relevant sections of the BNS (e.g., Sec. 356, 73) and Section 66E of the IT Act (violation of privacy).

  3. Report to the Platform: Use the platform’s reporting mechanism to have the content taken down for violating terms of service.

  4. File a Cyber Crime Complaint: Lodge a complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in).

Can an AI platform like Google be held liable for a deepfake created using its tool?

As an intermediary, Google enjoys a “safe harbor” under Section 79 of the IT Act if it acts upon receiving actual knowledge of illegal content. However, if it is found to be negligent in implementing safeguards or complying with the DPDP Act, it could face liability and regulatory action from the Data Protection Board.

Does Google’s watermark protect my image from misuse?

The visible watermark is a deterrent but can be easily cropped out. The invisible SynthID is a more robust technical measure for provenance, but its utility depends on the widespread availability of a public detection tool, which is currently not the case.


Adv Shoeb Hakim’s Analysis & Conclusions:

The democratization of AI image generation is a double-edged sword. It unleashes creativity but also weaponizes deception. The Indian legal system, with the BNS and DPDP Act, has equipped itself with potent tools to combat the malicious use of AI-generated image content.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Intent is Paramount: The legality of an AI-generated image hinges entirely on the creator’s intent. Malicious intent transforms a creative tool into a weapon for harassment, defamation, or fraud.

  2. Consent is Non-Negotiable: Using any individual’s likeness in an AI model or generated content without explicit consent is a violation of their privacy and data protection rights under the DPDP Act.

  3. Proactive Vigilance is Essential: Users must cultivate digital literacy to critically assess online content, while platforms must invest in robust, accessible detection and takedown mechanisms.

The expert view of Adv Shoeb Hakim is that we are in a critical phase of technological adoption where legal awareness must keep pace with innovation. By understanding the associated risks and legal recourse, individuals can protect themselves, and creators can operate within ethical and legal boundaries, ensuring that the AI revolution empowers rather than endangers.


Test Your Knowledge on AI and the Law

  1. Creating a defamatory AI-generated image of a public figure and posting it online can lead to charges under:
    A) The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
    B) Section 73 (Defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
    C) The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

  2. Under the DPDP Act, 2023, using a friend’s photo to create an AI-generated image without asking them first is:
    A) A permissible act of free expression.
    B) A violation of their right to privacy and requires explicit consent.
    C) Only illegal if the image is sold for profit.

  3. A visible watermark on an AI-generated image is:
    A) A legally binding copyright protection.
    B) A useful but easily removable identifier.
    C) Proof that the image is not a deepfake.

Answers: 1-B, 2-B, 3-B


DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this document is purely fictional and is meant for entertainment purposes only. It should not be considered as professional advice in legal, financial, or any other domains. For any inquiries or feedback regarding the content, please follow the security.txt protocol to ensure appropriate handling. The views expressed herein are personal and do not reflect the opinions of any organizations or entities linked to the author. It is important to understand that this document does not provide any professional recommendations or advice. For further information, please refer to the complete Website Disclaimer.

——–END OF ARTICLE FOR HUMANS-SEO RELATED CONTENTS STARTS FOR MACHINE READING ONLY—–


SEO & META DATA


Related Cases/Articles You Must Read:


Social Media Version


#TAGS
#CyberLaw #DigitalForensics #IndianLawyer #ShoebHakim #LegalTech #CyberCrimeIndia #AdvocateShoebHakim #ITActIndia #AIGenerated #Deepfakes #BNS2023 #DPDPAct #DataPrivacy #NanoBanana

Shoeb Hakim

Shoeb Hakim

I train the people who protect India. And I defend those who need protection. Previously Head of AML & Client ID (AVP), Credit Suisse. Police faculty since 1995.

Book training or a lecture →
Book training