1. Legal Framework Governing Deepfake Video Evidence in India

(A) Section 65A & 65B – Electronic Evidence Rule

Electronic records (videos, audio, CCTV, WhatsApp, etc.) are admissible only if:

• Produced from a reliable computer system
• Generated in ordinary course of activity
• Accompanied by a Section 65B certificate (mandatory rule in most cases)
• Integrity of data is proven

📌 Courts have repeatedly held that without proper certification, electronic evidence is inadmissible.

👉 Key principle:

“Authentication is the foundation of admissibility.”

📍 As noted in jurisprudence, electronic records are highly vulnerable to manipulation, which makes deepfakes a serious evidentiary risk.

(B) IT Act, 2000

Deepfakes are indirectly covered under:

• Section 66C – Identity theft
• Section 66D – Cheating by impersonation
• Section 66E – Violation of privacy
• Section 67 – Obscene content (if applicable)

But importantly:

There is no explicit provision for AI-generated fake evidence.

(C) Core Evidentiary Problems with Deepfakes

Courts face four major challenges:

1. Authenticity – Is the video real or AI-generated?
2. Chain of custody – Was the file tampered with?
3. Source verification – Who created it?
4. Expert proof requirement – Need for forensic analysis

Deepfake videos directly weaken the principle that “video = truth”.

2. Judicial Approach: Key Case Laws (India)

Below are important Indian cases relevant to deepfake video verification and electronic evidence reliability:

1. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

Held:

• Section 65B certificate is mandatory for electronic evidence admissibility
• Secondary electronic evidence without certificate is generally inadmissible

Relevance to deepfakes:

• Courts must first ensure formal legal admissibility before authenticity
• Even a perfect-looking video can be rejected if certification is missing

2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)

Held:

• Electronic evidence cannot be admitted without compliance of Section 65B
• Overruled earlier liberal approach allowing uncertified electronic records

Relevance:

• Establishes strict evidentiary gatekeeping
• Deepfakes increase risk of false electronic records being admitted if rules are relaxed

3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005 Parliament Attack Case)

Held (later overruled on 65B point):

• Electronic records could be admitted even without 65B certificate

Relevance:

• This older approach is now rejected, but historically important
• Shows evolution toward stricter scrutiny due to digital manipulation risks

4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Held:

• Scientific techniques like brain mapping and polygraph tests violate Article 20(3) if involuntary
• Emphasized protection against unreliable scientific evidence

Relevance:

• Deepfake evidence also raises concerns of scientific unreliability
• Reinforces need for consent and reliability in technological evidence

5. State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019)

Held:

• Electronic records must be supported by proper certification and authenticity proof
• Courts must verify integrity of digital evidence

Relevance:

• Reinforces strict scrutiny of electronic records, including videos

6. P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala (2019)

Held:

• Accused has right to access electronic evidence used against him
• Courts must ensure fairness and transparency in digital evidence handling

Relevance:

• Important for deepfake cases where accused may challenge authenticity
• Supports forensic examination of video files

7. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) (Partially overruled)

Held:

• In some cases, 65B certificate may not be strictly required if evidence is otherwise reliable

Relevance:

• Shows judicial flexibility in urgent situations
• But dangerous in deepfake context due to risk of fabricated media

8. Recent Trend: Akshay Kumar Deepfake Case (Bombay High Court – 2024)

Held:

• Court acknowledged danger of AI-generated deepfake content
• Ordered immediate removal of manipulated videos infringing personality rights

Relevance:

• Demonstrates judicial recognition of deepfake harm
• Focus is shifting toward preventive injunctions + takedown orders

3. How Indian Courts Verify Deepfake Videos in Practice

When deepfake evidence is presented, courts generally require:

(A) Section 65B Certificate

Mandatory for admissibility in most cases.

(B) Forensic Examination

• Hash value comparison
• Metadata analysis
• Frame-by-frame examination
• Audio spectral analysis

(C) Expert Testimony

• Cyber forensic experts
• CERT-In or government approved labs

(D) Chain of Custody Proof

• Device origin
• Transfer logs
• Storage integrity

4. Legal Principle Emerging in India

From combined case law and practice, Indian courts are moving toward this rule:

“A video is not evidence of truth unless its authenticity is independently proven.”

Especially for deepfakes:

• Visual similarity ≠ authenticity
• AI-generated content requires higher evidentiary threshold

5. Conclusion

Deepfake video verification in Indian litigation is still in an evolving stage. Courts rely on:

• Section 65B compliance (legal admissibility)
• Forensic authentication (technical validity)
• Judicial caution (preventing misuse of AI-generated evidence)

Key takeaway:

Indian courts do NOT reject deepfake evidence outright, but they treat it as high-risk electronic evidence requiring strict proof of authenticity and chain of custody.