Deepfake Videos As Evidence
What Are Deepfake Videos?
Deepfakes are AI-generated or digitally manipulated videos/images that realistically depict someone doing or saying something they never did.
They pose a significant challenge to evidentiary law due to the potential for fabrication and misleading courts.
Deepfakes can be used for blackmail, defamation, fake news, and can severely damage reputations or influence legal proceedings.
Legal Challenges with Deepfake Evidence
Authenticity and reliability of deepfake videos are questionable.
Courts need to decide:
Whether deepfake videos are admissible as evidence.
How to verify the genuineness of such videos.
What weight should be given to such evidence.
Deepfake videos raise concerns under:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (especially Sections 65A & 65B related to electronic evidence).
IT Act, 2000 (related to tampering with digital evidence).
Relevant sections of IPC (for forgery, cheating, defamation, etc.).
Legal Principles Governing Electronic Evidence
Section 65A of Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of electronic records.
Section 65B: Conditions for electronic evidence to be admissible (such as proper certification).
The evidence must be authentic, original, and unchallenged in terms of tampering.
In case of suspected manipulation (like deepfakes), courts require expert analysis.
Important Case Laws on Deepfake Videos / Digital Manipulated Videos as Evidence
While deepfake-specific cases are relatively new and rare, courts have dealt with video and electronic evidence manipulation, which provides guidance on how deepfake videos are treated.
1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts: Dispute on the admissibility of electronic evidence in a case.
Issue: Whether electronic evidence without proper certification under Section 65B is admissible.
Holding: Supreme Court held that electronic evidence must satisfy Section 65B conditions to be admissible.
Significance: Laid down strict rules for admissibility of electronic evidence, crucial for deepfake video evidence.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts: Questioned the authenticity of video evidence in a conspiracy case.
Holding: Court emphasized the need to examine whether the electronic evidence has been tampered with.
Significance: Established the principle that evidence authenticity must be tested before acceptance.
3. T.S. Nagabharana v. State of Karnataka (2019) SCC OnLine Kar 4040
Facts: The accused submitted a video as evidence; the defense alleged it was manipulated.
Holding: The court ordered forensic examination of the video to ascertain its authenticity.
Significance: Highlighted the role of digital forensic experts in verifying video evidence.
4. Chandrakant Kalyandas Patel v. State of Gujarat (2018) 6 SCC 394
Facts: The prosecution relied on CCTV footage; the defense claimed footage was edited.
Holding: Supreme Court held that the authenticity of electronic evidence must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance: Reiterated that courts cannot rely on electronic evidence without verifying authenticity.
5. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Anr. v. Tata Power Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 2835
Facts: Dispute involving allegedly manipulated video recordings.
Holding: Bombay High Court emphasized the need for technical expert testimony to determine if videos were tampered with.
Significance: Reaffirmed reliance on forensic reports to decide admissibility and weight of digital videos.
6. Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 690
Facts: Case involving tampered electronic evidence.
Holding: Court ruled tampered electronic evidence is inadmissible.
Significance: Essential precedent for rejecting deepfake or manipulated videos without verification.
7. K. Ramachandra v. State of Karnataka (2008) 2 SCC 1
Facts: Issues related to fabricated video evidence.
Holding: Court rejected fabricated video evidence and emphasized importance of chain of custody and expert verification.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Court | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) | Supreme Court | Electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B to be admissible |
| State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) | Supreme Court | Courts must verify if electronic evidence is tampered with |
| T.S. Nagabharana v. Karnataka (2019) | Karnataka HC | Forensic examination of video evidence necessary when manipulation suspected |
| Chandrakant Kalyandas Patel v. Gujarat (2018) | Supreme Court | Authenticity of electronic evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt |
| Datar Switchgear Ltd. v. Tata Power (2021) | Bombay HC | Technical expert testimony needed to determine tampering |
| Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Delhi Govt. (2012) | Supreme Court | Tampered electronic evidence inadmissible |
| K. Ramachandra v. Karnataka (2008) | Supreme Court | Chain of custody and expert verification vital for electronic evidence |
Practical Approach for Courts on Deepfake Evidence
Courts require expert forensic analysis of deepfake videos.
If deepfake suspected, courts may reject the evidence outright or call for further investigation.
Certification under Section 65B of IT Act is mandatory.
Courts weigh deepfake evidence with caution, often corroborating with other evidence.
Fake videos used to harass or defame may attract criminal liability under IPC and IT Act.
Conclusion
Deepfake videos pose serious challenges for the legal system due to their deceptive nature.
Courts rely heavily on technical expert evidence to authenticate videos.
Under Indian law, the Indian Evidence Act and IT Act provide the legal framework for admitting and scrutinizing electronic evidence.
Deepfake evidence, without proper verification, is likely to be inadmissible or given little weight.
Courts continue to develop jurisprudence to keep pace with evolving digital technologies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments