Deepfake Takedown in India — IT Rules 2026 & 3-Hour Timeline

Until February 2026, a victim of a deepfake — a non-consensual synthetic video or image made using their likeness — had to rely on an FIR, a civil suit, or an informal takedown request to the platform. Platforms had their own timelines. Courts moved slowly. The content spread in the interim.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified on February 10, 2026 and in force from February 20, 2026, changed the ground rules. Platforms now carry mandatory, timed obligations. The window to act before content spreads has shortened.

What the 2026 Amendment actually changed

Three specific timelines matter for victims. A 3-hour takedown window applies to content flagged by a court order or a designated government authority. A 2-hour window applies specifically to non-consensual intimate synthetic content — deepfake nudity. For other harmful content categories flagged by a user complaint through the platform's grievance mechanism, the prior 36-hour window remains, but platforms must acknowledge within 24 hours.

The amendment also introduces mandatory labelling of AI-generated or AI-modified content — what the Rules call Synthetic Generated Information (SGI). Platforms must deploy technical tools to identify and label SGI before it is published. This is the provision that has drawn the most litigation attention, including the X Corp matter currently under consideration before the Karnataka High Court regarding the breadth of the labelling obligation.

What counts as Synthetic Generated Information

SGI under the 2026 Rules covers any content that has been substantially created, altered or manipulated using AI tools — text, audio, image, or video — in a way that a reasonable person could mistake for authentic content. A doctored photograph of a public figure is SGI. A voice clone used in a scam call is SGI. An AI-generated video of a private individual in a compromising situation is SGI and also, depending on the content, an offence under Section 67A of the IT Act and Section 77 BNS.

How a victim invokes the takedown

The framework operates in two tracks. The first track is the platform's own grievance mechanism under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Intermediary Guidelines. A victim files a complaint through the platform's designated grievance officer — every significant social media intermediary is required to have one — identifying the content and the harm. For SGI involving non-consensual intimate content, the 2-hour window starts from the point the complaint is acknowledged.

The second track is a court order under Section 69A of the IT Act or a Magistrate's order under BNSS directing the platform to remove content. Where a platform is not responding within the mandated window, a Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) application to the Karnataka High Court has been used in such situations to compel platform compliance.

Evidence preservation — the step victims miss

A takedown request, if successful, removes the content. It also removes the evidence. Victims who send a takedown notice before preserving the content lose the ability to prosecute or sue later. The correct sequence is: preserve first, then request takedown.

Preservation means: URL screenshots with timestamps, a screen recording where possible, the full platform URL with post ID, any metadata visible in the post (upload date, account handle, follower count at the time), and a notarised or advocate-certified printout for court use. Where the platform is offshore and the content has been shared widely, preservation across multiple re-posts matters — the takedown of the original does not remove shares.

State cyber units and the Karnataka High Court

Karnataka's Cyber Economic and Narcotics (CEN) Crime units handle digital image offences, including deepfake cases. For matters involving rapid spread or refusal by a major platform to act within the mandated window, an FIR before the CEN unit combined with a Section 156(3) BNSS application in a lower court — or a writ before the Karnataka High Court — creates the legal pressure that platforms respond to.

The X Corp v. Union of India matter currently pending before the Karnataka High Court concerns the scope of the government's authority to issue removal orders under the 2026 Rules. That litigation is ongoing; we frame it as context, not as authority either way, and any outcome will be updated here when pronounced.