Political communication is evolving at an astonishing pace thanks to artificial intelligence. Political campaigns benefit from AI tools to create images, videos, audio clips and speeches in a short amount of time.
It raises a legal question, though—when is political expression permissible, and when does it become deliberate fabrication intended to misinform voters?
1. Can AI-generated political content mislead voters?
This is not merely theoretical. EY reported in 2025 that 68 per cent of consumers worry that AI-generated false information could be taken seriously. In politics, voters might encounter content showing a candidate saying or doing something that never occurred.
The solution is transparency and clear identification of AI-generated content.
2. What safeguards exist when AI is used during elections?
The Election Commission of India addressed this through its January 2025 advisory on labelling synthetic and AI-generated content used by political parties for election campaigning. The ECI advised political actors to prominently label such content and include disclaimers wherever synthetic content is used.
The solution is thus responsible disclosure and compliance with applicable ECI directions.
3. Is there one law that governs AI-generated political content?
No. AI-generated political content is not dealt with under one single regulation. Depending on the content and harm caused, laws relating to elections, information technology, impersonation, and defamation may become relevant.
The solution is to examine the conduct and its consequences, rather than treating the use of AI itself as unlawful.
4. Can AI-generated material come within electoral safeguards?
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 remains an important component of India's electoral legislation. The Election Commission's Model Code of Conduct also sets standards for political parties and candidates.
As per the ECI, if AI-generated material is presented as the genuine statement or action of a political leader, the circumstances in which it is created and circulated may become legally significant.
The solution is to assess the content and context.
5. Has Indian law begun to address synthetic content directly?
Yes. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), on February 10, 2026, notified amendments to the Information Technology Rules, 2021 with regard to obligations relating to synthetically generated information (SGI) and due diligence.
The solution is better disclosure, identification of synthetic content and due diligence—both to allow users to identify such content, and to ensure platforms are aware of their obligations.
6. Who should be responsible when AI-generated political content goes viral?
One person may create synthetic content, another may upload it, a political campaign may use it, and thousands may share it. Who created it, authorised its publication or knowingly disseminated false information can therefore be difficult to establish. The important issue is not simply what technology was employed, but the intent and impact of its use.
Protection will be limited to discussions about whether AI has been intentionally misused to fool voters, pretend to be an elected official, or disseminate information that causes legally recognisable harm. Meanwhile, regulations must allow freedom of expression, including satire and criticism related to political matters.
The solution is to determine responsibility according to conduct, intent, knowledge and harm.
7. Does every AI-generated political image, video or audio recording become illegal?
No. Material used for political satire, parody, commentary or creative campaigning does not necessarily establish an intention to deceive.
The solution is contextual assessment: distinguishing deliberate deception from legitimate political expression.
8. Can the law respond quickly when synthetic content spreads instantly?
Synthetic content can be replicated, distributed and shared nearly instantly, while traditional legal solutions may require more time. By the time content is identified as fake, it may already have reached a large audience.
The solution is early detection, clear labelling and effective grievance redressal. The ECI's framework also addresses responsible use of social media and manipulated content during elections.
9. Should digital platforms also bear responsibility?
Platforms must balance users' rights and lawful speech with applicable legal obligations while responding to manipulated information. The 2026 MeitY amendments strengthen the due-diligence framework for intermediaries in relation to Synthetically Generated Information.
Whether responsibility ultimately rests with the creator, political campaign, intermediary, or person who knowingly spreads the material, will remain an important question in future legal disputes.
The solution is proportionate accountability based on each party's role, knowledge, and intent.
10. Is AI creating new political offences or making existing problems harder to control?
AI is not necessarily creating a new category of political wrongdoing. It can make the creation and sharing of misinformation, impersonation and deception easier.
The way forward is transparency, disclosure, effective enforcement and accountability.
Technology will increasingly influence political communication, but voters will need to be able to distinguish what a politician actually said from what AI-generated content makes it appear a politician said. This balance is crucial to informed voter choice and legitimate political expression.
The author is a Supreme Court lawyer and Founder, SRK Legal.
