Score:
9.5/15
Analyze what earned this score 🔥
Topper’s Copy
GS2
Indian Polity
15 marks
With the rise of deepfake technologies and AI-generated content, discuss the challenges they pose to personality rights in India. Evaluate the adequacy of existing legal frameworks and suggest measures to ensure stronger protection.
Student’s Answer
Evaluation by SuperKalam
Demand of the Question
- Challenges posed by deepfakes/AI to personality rights - threats to identity, dignity, commercial interests
- Evaluate existing legal frameworks - assess adequacy of current laws (IT Act, constitutional provisions, etc.)
- Suggest measures for stronger protection - forward-looking solutions and policy recommendations
What you wrote:
The rise of deepfake technology and generative AI pose an unprecedented threat to personality rights in India, blurring the lines b/w genuine identity and synthetic deception, with severe consequences for dignity and autonomy.
The rise of deepfake technology and generative AI pose an unprecedented threat to personality rights in India, blurring the lines b/w genuine identity and synthetic deception, with severe consequences for dignity and autonomy.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could briefly define personality rights (e.g., rights over one's name, image, likeness, and voice) to provide clearer conceptual foundation for the discussion.
What you wrote:
A. Big challenge posed by Deepfakes
1. Violation of commercial & personal rights: Deepfakes enable the unauthorized use of a person's likeness, voice, or image for fraudulent commercial endorsements, scams, or malicious political propaganda. Example: The recent Delhi High Court Case (e.g S actor shroff Anil Kapoor) restricting the use of celebrity persona by AI-mindless high regards - his commercial infringement.
2. Reputational Harm and Dignity: The creation of non-consensual explicit content or defamatory videos causes irreparable damage to an individual's reputation, violating his right to live with dignity (Article 21).
3. Anonymity and Jurisdiction: Perpetrators often operate anonymously across borders, making the identification and prosecution of offenders exceedingly difficult.
A. Big challenge posed by Deepfakes
1. Violation of commercial & personal rights: Deepfakes enable the unauthorized use of a person's likeness, voice, or image for fraudulent commercial endorsements, scams, or malicious political propaganda. Example: The recent Delhi High Court Case (e.g S actor shroff Anil Kapoor) restricting the use of celebrity persona by AI-mindless high regards - his commercial infringement.
2. Reputational Harm and Dignity: The creation of non-consensual explicit content or defamatory videos causes irreparable damage to an individual's reputation, violating his right to live with dignity (Article 21).
3. Anonymity and Jurisdiction: Perpetrators often operate anonymously across borders, making the identification and prosecution of offenders exceedingly difficult.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could elaborate on gender-based deepfake abuse (e.g., non-consensual intimate imagery affecting 95% women victims according to studies)
- Can include electoral manipulation challenges (e.g., deepfake videos of political leaders during elections threatening democratic processes)
What you wrote:
B. Adequacy of Existing Legal Frameworks
India lacks a dedicated, codified statute on personality rights, protection is currently fragmented and spill on:
i) IT Act, 2000 & Rules (2021): Sections 66C (Identity theft), 66D (cheating by impersonation) and Intermediary guidelines address takedowns of harmful content, but enforcement is slow.
ii) Common Law / Courts: Judicial interpretation of Article 21 (Right to privacy/Dignity) and principles like "passing off" (under Trademark law) provide relief, but their reactive and often limited to high-profile cases.
iii) The Digital personal data protection Act (DPDP)-2023?: mandates consent for personal data processing (including biometrics/likeness) providing a crucial defense line.
The current system is inadequate due to its reactive nature, jurisdictional limitations, and the absence of clear definitions for AI-generated harms.
B. Adequacy of Existing Legal Frameworks
India lacks a dedicated, codified statute on personality rights, protection is currently fragmented and spill on:
i) IT Act, 2000 & Rules (2021): Sections 66C (Identity theft), 66D (cheating by impersonation) and Intermediary guidelines address takedowns of harmful content, but enforcement is slow.
ii) Common Law / Courts: Judicial interpretation of Article 21 (Right to privacy/Dignity) and principles like "passing off" (under Trademark law) provide relief, but their reactive and often limited to high-profile cases.
iii) The Digital personal data protection Act (DPDP)-2023?: mandates consent for personal data processing (including biometrics/likeness) providing a crucial defense line.
The current system is inadequate due to its reactive nature, jurisdictional limitations, and the absence of clear definitions for AI-generated harms.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could highlight Copyright Act, 1957 provisions on moral rights and their relevance to personality protection
- Can mention specific case precedents like Titan Industries vs Ramkumar Jewellers establishing personality rights jurisprudence in India
What you wrote:
Way forward
[DRAWING:
A central oval box is labelled "Ensuring strong protection". Four rectangular boxes are placed around it, with arrows pointing from each box towards the central oval.
The top-left box is labelled "1. Codified Law". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Enact a dedicated statute specifically defining and protecting personality rights against digital misuse, incorporating strict penalties for deepfake offences."
The top-right box is labelled "2. Mandatory watermarking". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Implement a policy for mandatory machine-readable watermarking and labelling of all synthetic content to enhance traceability."
The bottom-left box is labelled "3. platform liability". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Strengthen Intermediary liability provisions, compelling platforms to use proactive AI detection tools and enforce rapid time-bound removal of deepfake content."
The bottom-right box is labelled "4. Global Cooperation". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Engage in international collaboration to establish global protocols for tracing deepfake origins across jurisdiction."
]
Way forward
[DRAWING:
A central oval box is labelled "Ensuring strong protection". Four rectangular boxes are placed around it, with arrows pointing from each box towards the central oval.
The top-left box is labelled "1. Codified Law". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Enact a dedicated statute specifically defining and protecting personality rights against digital misuse, incorporating strict penalties for deepfake offences."
The top-right box is labelled "2. Mandatory watermarking". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Implement a policy for mandatory machine-readable watermarking and labelling of all synthetic content to enhance traceability."
The bottom-left box is labelled "3. platform liability". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Strengthen Intermediary liability provisions, compelling platforms to use proactive AI detection tools and enforce rapid time-bound removal of deepfake content."
The bottom-right box is labelled "4. Global Cooperation". An arrow points from this label to the text: "Engage in international collaboration to establish global protocols for tracing deepfake origins across jurisdiction."
]
Suggestions to improve:
- Could add victim support mechanisms (e.g., fast-track courts for personality rights violations, legal aid for affected individuals)
- Can include public awareness campaigns and digital literacy initiatives to help citizens identify and report deepfake content
What you wrote:
Suggestions to improve:
- Could conclude by emphasizing the constitutional imperative of protecting human dignity in the digital age and linking solutions to India's Digital India mission for comprehensive digital governance.
Strong analytical approach with good legal grounding and practical solutions. The visual framework effectively demonstrates policy comprehension, though a formal conclusion would strengthen the overall structure and provide closure to the comprehensive discussion presented.
Demand of the Question
- Challenges posed by deepfakes/AI to personality rights - threats to identity, dignity, commercial interests
- Evaluate existing legal frameworks - assess adequacy of current laws (IT Act, constitutional provisions, etc.)
- Suggest measures for stronger protection - forward-looking solutions and policy recommendations
What you wrote:
The rise of deepfake technology and generative AI pose an unprecedented threat to personality rights in India, blurring the lines b/w genuine identity and synthetic deception, with severe consequences for dignity and autonomy.
The rise of deepfake technology and generative AI pose an unprecedented threat to personality rights in India, blurring the lines b/w genuine identity and synthetic deception, with severe consequences for dignity and autonomy.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could briefly define personality rights (e.g., rights over one's name, image, likeness, and voice) to provide clearer conceptual foundation for the discussion.
More Challenges
View All- View Challenge
GS2
Indian Polity
29 Nov, 2025
Critically examine the Election Commission’s stance on simultaneous elections in India, especially with reference to the basic structure doctrine and election-related institutional mechanisms.
- View Challenge
GS2
Governance
Yesterday
Critically examine the limitations of the POSH Act in addressing sexual harassment in educational institutions, especially in cases involving power imbalance and emotional manipulation. Suggest reforms.
- View Challenge
GS1
World Geography
26 Nov, 2025
“The 2025 Hayli Gubbi volcanic eruption highlights the geological dynamism of the East African Rift System.” Explain.
