Short answer: There is no separate deepfake law in India yet, but any audio, video or image used in court is an electronic record that must pass the authenticity tests in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). A suspected fake is challenged by demanding the original device and certificate, checking hash values and metadata, and seeking examination by a forensic laboratory. If you are the target of a fabricated clip, you can also file a criminal complaint and seek takedown.
Why this problem is growing
Voice-cloning and face-swap tools can now produce a convincing clip in minutes. Edited WhatsApp audio, cropped videos and screenshots with altered names or timestamps are also common. In criminal cases these files are sometimes produced as proof of a threat, a confession, a demand or a relationship. The court cannot simply assume such a file is genuine, and neither should you assume it will be accepted.
What the law says
- Electronic records are documents: Section 61 BSA treats electronic records like other documents for admissibility, but they still have to be proved.
- Certificate and hash value: Section 63 BSA (old Section 65B of the Evidence Act) requires a certificate in the prescribed Schedule form for electronic records produced as copies. Part A is signed by the party or the person in charge of the device; Part B by a person with technical qualifications, and it records the hash value. In Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (22 May 2026), a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld Section 63(4), describing the hash value as an “electronic fingerprint” and Part B as an added layer of authenticity.
- Mandatory certificate: In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Supreme Court held the certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, though it may be produced at a later stage of trial subject to fairness.
- Forensic opinion: Section 39 BSA (old Sections 45 and 45A) makes the opinion of a person with specialised skill, including an Examiner of Electronic Evidence, relevant when the court must form an opinion on such matters.
- Offences: Fabricating a recording may attract forgery provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 336 BNS), defamation (Section 356 BNS), and the Information Technology Act, including Section 66D (cheating by personation using a computer resource) and Section 66E (violation of privacy). Recent amendments to the IT Rules also require platforms to label synthetically generated content.
How authenticity is tested
A genuine challenge rests on technical facts, not suspicion. The questions usually asked are:
- Where is the original? A clip forwarded several times loses metadata. The device on which it was first recorded is far more informative.
- Does the hash value match? A hash calculated at the time of seizure should match the file produced in court. Any change to the file, even one frame, changes the hash.
- What does the metadata show? Creation dates, device model, encoding software and editing traces can reveal that a file was exported from an editing tool.
- What does a forensic laboratory find? Central and State Forensic Science Laboratories examine audio and video for splicing, frame inconsistencies, cloned voice patterns and compression anomalies. A voice sample comparison may be sought.
- Is the certificate proper? A missing, generic or post-dated Section 63 certificate is a separate ground of objection. Our article on forensic and digital evidence delays explains how laboratory timelines affect this.
If you are the target of a fake clip
- Preserve the evidence lawfully: save the link, take screen recordings showing the URL and date, and note who sent it. Do not delete your own original files or chats.
- Report it on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in) or helpline 1930, and file a written complaint at the police station or cyber cell.
- Use the platform’s grievance mechanism to request takedown; intermediaries must act on complaints within the timelines in the IT Rules, with shorter timelines for intimate images.
- If the police do not register an FIR, the remedies in Section 173(4) BNSS (written complaint to the Superintendent of Police) and Section 175(3) BNSS (application to the Magistrate, supported by affidavit) are available.
- Consider civil remedies such as an injunction and damages where reputation is harmed. Our guide on reputation and online harm in criminal cases covers this further.
Common mistakes
Do not create counter-clips, “fix” a recording, or alter any file to prove your point. Do not approach the person who made the clip with threats. Do not hand over your phone’s passwords to anyone other than through a lawful process. Each of these can create new legal problems.
Common questions
Can a deepfake be used to arrest someone?
Police may act on a complaint, but arrest for offences up to seven years is governed by Section 35 BNSS and must meet necessity conditions. A doubtful clip should be examined before it is relied on.
Who pays for forensic examination?
Where the prosecution relies on a file, examination is usually by a government laboratory. The defence can apply to the court for examination or re-examination where there are specific grounds.
Is a screenshot enough to prove a message was sent?
A screenshot is a copy and needs to be proved through the Section 63 certificate and, where disputed, the original device or service provider records.
When to speak to an advocate
Speak to an advocate as soon as you learn that a recording or image is being used against you, or that a fabricated clip of you is circulating. Early steps, such as preservation requests and a timely complaint, are often decisive.
Sources: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (India Code); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (India Code).
For a confidential discussion about a recording, image or video you believe has been fabricated or edited, see Criminal Lawyer, Surajpur Court, Greater Noida.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
