Home/AI & Synthetic Media Law/Deepfake & Content Removal
Practice Area · India
Deepfake and Morphed Content Removal
If a deepfake, morphed image, or other synthetic content involving you is circulating, what you do in the first hour matters as much as what you do afterwards. This page sets out the order of operations: preserve, then report, then escalate if the platform does not act.
Before you request a takedown
Preserve the content first. Screenshot or screen-record it in full, including the URL and the date and time you viewed it. Save the file itself where you can. Note the platform's own content or post ID if one is shown, and who posted it if that is visible. A takedown removes the record you may later need for a police report or a court application — do this before, not after, you report it.
Which complaint route applies to you
The route that applies, and how fast it must be actioned, depends on what the content actually is — not on the fact that it was AI-generated.
Private, morphed, or non-consensual intimate content
Where the content is private, morphed, or non-consensual intimate imagery, a citizen complaint through the platform's grievance officer carries a two-hour period for action under Rule 3(2)(b) of the amended IT Rules. This is the fastest route available to an individual acting directly, and it is specific to this category of content.
Other unlawful synthetic content
For synthetic content that does not fall into that category — a fabricated statement, a fraudulent endorsement, defamatory material — the ordinary grievance process applies: acknowledgment within twenty-four hours and disposal within seven days. The faster three-hour period under Rule 3(1)(d) is not a citizen complaint route; it is triggered by a court order or a government agency giving the intermediary actual knowledge, which is one reason a police report or court application can matter even while a platform complaint is pending.
Report to cybercrime.gov.in and the police — in parallel, not after
File a complaint with cybercrime.gov.in or at a police station at the same time as the platform complaint, not once the platform has finished responding. This creates an independent, timestamped record, starts the criminal-law track regardless of how the platform ultimately rules, and can support a court application if one becomes necessary. Call the Cyber Crime Helpline on 1930 for a live incident.
The Sahyog portal is not where you, as a citizen, report this. Sahyog is a government and law-enforcement channel through which agencies such as I4C issue notices to intermediaries under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. It sits behind the platform complaint and the police report, not in front of them.
When a civil injunction is the faster or more effective path
A court application is often the better route, rather than a fallback, where:
- The person responsible is anonymous or unidentifiable — Indian courts have granted injunctions against unnamed defendants (John Doe / Ashok Kumar orders) that bind anyone who subsequently hosts or shares the content.
- The content is being re-uploaded or mirrored faster than individual takedown requests can keep up.
- A platform has not acted within the applicable statutory window and continued exposure is causing ongoing harm.
- Relief is needed across multiple platforms or URLs at once, which a single grievance complaint cannot achieve.
The legal basis for this kind of relief is discussed on the personality rights page, including how the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have approached similar applications.
The first 24 hours
A working order of operations, not a substitute for advice on your specific facts.
-
Preserve the content
Screenshot or record it with the URL and timestamp visible. Save the original file where possible. Note the poster's identity and the platform's content ID if shown.
-
Identify the content category
Private, morphed, or non-consensual intimate content follows the two-hour citizen route. Other unlawful synthetic content follows the ordinary grievance process.
-
File the platform grievance
Use the platform's grievance officer mechanism, referencing the applicable Rule and category so it is routed correctly.
-
Report to cybercrime.gov.in and the police
File this at the same time as the platform complaint, not afterwards. Call 1930 if the matter is live and urgent.
-
Escalate if there is inaction, anonymity, or repeat infringement
Where the platform route is not enough on its own, a civil injunction — including against unidentified defendants — may be the more effective path.
If you have been named in a complaint
Not everyone named in a synthetic media complaint created the content. Complaints in this area routinely sweep in people who forwarded material, hosted it, operated the account it was posted from, or were identified from a device rather than from the act itself. Where an allegation has been made, the questions that matter first are procedural.
The first thing that matters is which provisions the FIR actually cites
Section 77B of the Information Technology Act provides that offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years are bailable, and those punishable with three years and above are cognizable. Sections 66C and 66D — the provisions most frequently applied in synthetic media complaints — carry up to three years, and are therefore cognizable but bailable. The Supreme Court reiterated this reading of Section 77B in 2026, setting aside a High Court view that had not taken the provision into account.
Where an FIR also invokes Section 67A of the IT Act, or Sections 318 or 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the position is materially different, and pre-arrest protection becomes a live question rather than an academic one.
Three procedural routes arise most often, and which applies depends entirely on the stage the matter has reached:
- Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is available where a non-bailable offence is alleged and there is reason to apprehend arrest. Both the Court of Session and the High Court have jurisdiction.
- Regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS where arrest has already taken place.
- Quashing under Section 528 BNSS — the provision that now carries the High Court's inherent powers, formerly Section 482 CrPC — where the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged.
Two further points arise specifically in synthetic media matters. First, where the case rests on electronic material, its admissibility depends on compliance with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The certification requirement is frequently not met in practice, and whether it has been is a question of record rather than argument. Second, Section 47 BNSS now requires written grounds of arrest to be furnished, which is a matter capable of being tested.
Where a bank account has been frozen because funds are said to have passed through it, that is a distinct problem with its own route, and it is often the most immediately disruptive part of a matter.
On representation
Every person accused of an offence is entitled to be represented and to bail on the terms the law provides. Nothing on this page suggests otherwise, and nothing here is a comment on the merits of any particular allegation.
Law stated as at 11 August 2026
Frequently asked
Do I report a deepfake through the Sahyog portal?
No. Sahyog is a government and law-enforcement channel through which agencies such as I4C issue notices to intermediaries under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. As an individual, you use the platform's grievance officer, and separately cybercrime.gov.in or the police.
Should I request a takedown immediately, before saving anything?
No. Preserve the content first — screenshots, the URL, the timestamp, the file itself where possible. A takedown removes the record you may need later for a police report or a court application.
What is the actual time limit for a platform to act on a citizen complaint?
Two hours under Rule 3(2)(b), specifically for private, morphed or non-consensual intimate content. Other unlawful synthetic content follows the ordinary grievance process: acknowledgment within twenty-four hours, disposal within seven days. The three-hour period under Rule 3(1)(d) is triggered by a court or government notice, not by a citizen complaint directly.
What if the person who posted it can't be identified?
Indian courts have granted injunctions against unidentified defendants, sometimes described as John Doe or Ashok Kumar orders, which can bind anyone who subsequently hosts, shares or re-uploads the content, and direct intermediaries to act accordingly.
Should I go to the police even if I've already complained to the platform?
Yes, and at the same time rather than afterwards. The two tracks run independently, and a police or cybercrime.gov.in report creates a record that does not depend on how or whether the platform responds.
I have been named in a cybercrime FIR over a deepfake. What happens next?
The immediate position depends on which provisions have been invoked, because that determines whether the offences alleged are bailable and whether pre-arrest protection is available. The FIR itself, and any notice received, are the starting documents. Steps taken in the first days — particularly around preservation of your own devices and records — frequently affect what can be argued later.
Are Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act bailable?
Yes. Section 77B of the IT Act provides that offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years are bailable, and those punishable with three years and above are cognizable. Sections 66C and 66D carry up to three years and are accordingly cognizable and bailable. The Supreme Court restated this reading of Section 77B in 2026. Note that an FIR frequently cites additional provisions — Section 67A of the IT Act, or Sections 318 or 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — which are not bailable, and the presence of those provisions changes the position entirely.
Can anticipatory bail be sought in an IT Act matter?
Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is available where a non-bailable offence is alleged. Where an FIR cites only bailable provisions, the remedy is different in character. Where it also invokes non-bailable provisions, an application lies before the Court of Session or the High Court. Whether one is appropriate depends on what is actually alleged and at what stage the matter stands.
The complaint says I created the content, but I did not. How is that addressed?
Through the record rather than through assertion. Attribution in synthetic media matters usually rests on device logs, account records, IP data and forensic material, each of which has evidentiary requirements. Where the material relied on does not comply with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — which replaced Section 65B of the Evidence Act — its admissibility is open to challenge. Where an FIR does not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged at all, quashing under Section 528 BNSS is the route.
My bank account has been frozen in connection with a cyber complaint. What can be done?
Account freezes arising from cyber investigations are a distinct issue from the underlying allegation, and are often the most disruptive part of a matter. Relief is sought on the basis of the account holder's own position and the extent to which the funds in question are actually connected to the complaint. This should be dealt with promptly rather than after the criminal matter resolves.
Can an FIR be quashed if the complaint does not disclose an offence?
The High Court's inherent powers, now under Section 528 BNSS and formerly Section 482 CrPC, allow proceedings to be quashed where the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged or where continuation would amount to an abuse of process. The text of Section 528 is substantially the same as the earlier provision, so the established authorities continue to apply. Whether the threshold is met is entirely fact-specific.
Enquiries
If a matter is time-sensitive — content already circulating, a takedown window running, or a statutory deadline approaching — say so in the first line.
Or write directly to info@bylaw.in