Author: Adv. Sifa Inamdar (B.A.LLB, LL.M), Savitribai Phule Pune University. 

1. Introduction

One of the major changes that took place due to the intelligent use of AI was the revolution of digital markets which in turn changed the way media was consumed all over the world. Nevertheless, there are still issues relating to privacy, dignity, and security with the great advantages of technology. There are no risks that are only in the realm of imagination; in Virtual world anyone (disproportionately more women being targeted) can be a victim of non-consensual intimate deepfakes (NCID) which is an abusive type of content commonly and mistakenly known as “deepfake porn”. 

The accelerated tech-advancement has skyrocketed gender-based violence, more conversantly to the female at target, as women are the most targeted for characterization, sexual abuse, and even privacy intrusion. What used to belong to the realm of personal decency is now isolated on social media platforms whose reach and permanency are beyond anything ever known, thus, leading to the rise of questions which lawmakers and policymakers should respond: how law and policy can combat AI-driven threats to women’s privacy and reputation? Are the current legislative frameworks in a rapidly digitising nation like India sufficient to address such issues?

This article is an attempt to present these issues by illustrating the real-life detrimental effects of AI on women in online spaces, through the examination of their intersection with social media, and by the assessment of the sufficiency of current legal responses in ensuring women’s rights in the digital era.

2.  Social media and Women 

Social media is one of the factors that can either be beneficial or harmful. Social media is typically considered to be a platform that provides one with opportunities to empower not only women, to express their opinion, and to interact professionally with increasing global as well as wider audience escaping the territorial bounds. As Studies show that more than 60% of teenagers spend over three hours daily on social media platforms consuming the content allowing access to everyone without restrictions. It’s been beneficial for everyone Specially for women who see these, online platforms as vital tools for networking, career visibility, activism and Self-Expression. However, these very platforms often turn hostile if not regulated and reviewed by the individuals. 

Women users on such Social network often face a lack of control over the visibility of their data, which is constantly stored, analysed, and repurposed by algorithms. More concerning is algorithmic amplification, where suggestive or sexualized content disproportionately receives visibility, normalizing “soft porn” culture and encouraging predatory attention for its younger audience. Platforms often evade responsibility by relying on “safe harbour” protections, such as under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which shields intermediaries from liability unless a proactive step is taken by the government which is often not accessible while the mechanisms of the individual reporting face issues like delays and non-reconcilers often magnifying the psychological impact on the individual. This shifts the burden onto individuals rather than incentivizing platforms to act responsibly. Recent example being Babydoll archie who was a deepfake model created based on the real woman this was married resident of Dibrugarh, Assam, who was suddenly and traumatically thrust into a world of public scrutiny, digital violation, and harassment.

When these unkept or Unregulated platforms add the menace to the mix. Presenting us with the instance, like in South Korea wherein the infamous “Nth Room” case exposed how Telegram was misused for large-scale sexual exploitation through hidden chatrooms exploiting the women population in comfort other homes though their social media data. Similarly, in India, actresses and content creators continue to face deepfake attacks, such as the recent incident involving the circulation of a deepfake image of Gautami from “Slay Point” during a YouTube feud by cult of fans that deem a critical remark to content of their youtuber creator as disrespect. Such examples demonstrate how AI-generated media can devastate reputations, careers, and personal lives, with little accountability for perpetrators or platforms.

3.  Online Identity and Legal Harms

The expansion of online identity raises new questions about legal remedies. While privacy and reputation are recognized rights, their enforcement in the age of AI remains inadequate. As in the Puttaswamy case, the Supreme Court acknowledged privacy as a fundamental right, but its scope requires reconsideration in the growing digital ecosystem as the domains keep growing and remain undefined. Similarly, the recognition of the right to reputation in Subramanian Swamy underscores not only social but psychological harm caused by defamation holding it as fundamental right under article 21 of Indian constitution, but AI-generated deepfakes introduce complexities that existing defamation laws struggle to address.

The harm is not abstract. Women have increasingly and repeatably have been the primary targets of AI misuse, from revenge pornography to “fake nudes” and manipulated videos shared for pleasure or reputational sabotage. Such harms violate not only personal dignity but also human rights, including the right to equality and non-discrimination.

While the Indian criminal law provides some tools to address these challenges through criminal legislation like Bhartiya Nyaya Shanita, 2023 provide remedies for Voyeurism under Section 77 (previously IPC Section 354C), Stalking under Section 78 (previously IPC Section 354D) and Insulting the modesty of a woman under Section 79 (previously IPC Section 509) which have little relevance in the digital world expect stalking which is gender specific while the reputational damages are still covered under Sections 499–500  providing protection from defamation. 

On other hand the sectoral legislation of  The Information Technology Act, criminalizes violations such as Section 66E for privacy violation for any form and Sections 67 & 67A for publication and transmission of obscene material over the digital world. This Sense of privacy and reputation of women have is one of the core things guarded by constitutional and international human rights frameworks.

The Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) has highlighted the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. On the other hand, in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Court interpreted that reputation is a necessary feature of the right to life conferred under Article 21 emphasising the social and psychological harm to the individuals.

Although, deepfakes victims are often women who are humiliated and are looking for a beacon of hope due to a lack of an explicit statute or provisions that criminalize deepfakes. Such women are forced to rely on general provisions that not only lack the capacity to protect them but also are not designed to deal with synthetic media such as deepfakes. This void in the law means that women have no other option but to wait for the damage to be done before they can embark on the journey towards getting justice. This legal gap means that women are forced to seek redress only after harm has already occurred and as the saying goes, “It’s no use crying over spilt milk”

4.  Data Protection and Preventive Gaps

One might expect the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, to offer some remedy. However, this illusion of protection is troublingly narrow due to its limited scope. Section  3 (c) of the DPDP Act excludes “publicly available” data from protection, meaning that much of the data women post on social media platforms is outside the Act’s scope of protection and action. Consequently, while the Act provides mechanisms against certain privacy breaches, it offers little to protect against AI-enabled exploitation relying heavily on the traditional multi legislation multi charge system. Leaving Victims to rely on a patchwork of other legal regimes, such as Bhartiya Nyaya Shanita, copyright law or the IT Act.

On a global scale, the AI rise has had a significant impact on the regulators who have been forced to come up with new approaches. A case in point is the European Union’s AI Act that sets requirements for more severe rules through its AI act. Besides, some nations are piloting mandatory watermarking of AI-produced texts, creating seals to make re-change possible on Social media. Globally, such steps underscore the fact that the present Indian way of dealing with the problem is insufficient as well as that there is a greater need for anticipating policymaking than for reacting with solutions.

5.  Practical Concerns and Everyday Safety

While legal reform is necessary, prevention also plays a crucial role. Women can reduce their vulnerability by exercising caution online. For example, photos uploaded on social media often contain Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) data, which includes metadata such as location and timestamps. This information can be easily extracted by malicious actors and misused for stalking or harassment.

Simple awareness measures such as disabling geotagging, restricting profile visibility, and avoiding oversharing can help minimize risks. However, framing this merely as “individual responsibility” ignores the structural problem: platforms and regulators must create safer digital environments.

6.  Conclusion

AI and online platforms are changing the way women use digital services. Besides exposing women to increased risks (such as privacy invasion, reputational harm, and targeted harassment), these channels trigger the same risks but also offer them the possibility of being seen and helping themselves. Though somewhat helpful, current laws in India are still divided and response-based. The lack of clear regulations on deepfakes and AI-driven harms is giving women the possibility of receiving harm exposure of an irreversible nature.

Moving forward, India must align its frameworks with global best practices—mandating stricter platform accountability, introducing watermarking for AI content, and criminalizing malicious use of synthetic media. Women’s rights to privacy and reputation are not luxuries but fundamental human rights that must be safeguarded in the digital age. Until then, the burden of navigating AI-driven risks will continue to fall unfairly on women themselves.