Parliamentary Standing Committee reports on cybercrime (Home Affairs, 2025) and fake news (Communications and IT, 2025): deepfakes and AI-generated content

Parliamentary concern about deepfakes preceded the 2025 reports. MeitY's own explanatory note to its October 2025 draft rules on synthetic content records that 'concerns have also been raised in both the Houses of Parliament' about the regulation of deepfakes and synthetic content.¹⁰ In December 2023, a question to the IT Minister asking whether the government planned to regulate generative AI, with sub-questions on open-source policy for large language models, ethical development and privacy, was among those left unanswered when 27 Lok Sabha and 44 Rajya Sabha questions were deleted after the suspension of MPs.¹¹

Department-related standing committees examine ministries' work and issue reports with recommendations; ministries are expected to reply with action-taken notes, but the recommendations are not enforceable. Two committees took up the issue of AI-generated content in 2025, from the perspectives of crime and of misinformation.

The Standing Committee on Home Affairs, chaired by Dr Radha Mohan Das Agrawal, presented its report 'Cyber Crime: Ramifications, Protection and Prevention' on 20 August 2025. MediaNama refers to it as the 254th Report.¹² The committee noted that deepfakes and AI-generated misleading content had increased, and observed that the law does not distinguish between user-generated and AI-generated content.¹ According to MediaNama it said existing law 'does not differentiate between synthetically generated and user-created content' and urged express AI-specific provisions in legislation.²

On deepfakes the committee recommended a framework under which all content is watermarked, asked MeitY to build a framework for tracking and labelling manipulated media and set 'uniform technical standards for media provenance', recommended that CERT-In coordinate monitoring and issue detection alerts, and welcomed C-DAC's Deepfake Detection Tool, then in testing, which was said to achieve 89 per cent accuracy on global benchmarks and had been shared with law enforcement.¹²

On the IT Act, 2000 the committee noted that many provisions are bailable and low in penalty and that the Act contains no provision making intermediaries liable to compensate victims of harm caused by their inaction. It recommended harsher penalties, compensation by intermediaries and investigation of cybercrime by officers above the rank of Inspector.¹ According to MediaNama it also called for a review of safe harbour protections under Section 79.³ The wider report proposed a dedicated cybercrime law with an Integrated Cybercrime Task Force, amending the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act so that the CBI can investigate cybercrime without state consent, verification of offshore advertisers, a 'verified tick' for SEBI-registered financial influencers, and stronger oversight of OTT platforms, with dissenting MPs also raising federalism concerns about the CBI proposal.¹³⁴

Three members dissented. Ajay Maken (INC) warned that changes to safe harbour could push platforms towards pre-emptive censorship and proposed that takedowns be triggered only by a court or quasi-judicial body, an independent Digital Tribunal and alignment with the DPDP Act, 2023; Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC) objected to OTT pre-certification and sought conflict-of-interest disclosure by financial influencers; Haris Beeran (IUML) supported statutory backing for the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre but opposed letting the CBI investigate cybercrime without state consent.³

MediaNama's analysis raised enforcement questions about watermarking: whether platforms can watermark very large volumes of files across formats, whether smaller services and start-ups can bear the cost, whether foreign content streamed in India would need to comply, whether watermarking works when bad actors use tools outside regulated platforms, and whether liability for missed watermarks would lead platforms to over-block lawful content.²

The Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, chaired by Dr Nishikant Dubey (BJP), adopted its report 'Review of Mechanism to Curb Fake News' unanimously and submitted it to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla; PRS records its presentation on 11 September 2025, and MediaNama reported on 3 December 2025 that it had been tabled in the Lok Sabha on 2 December.⁵⁶⁸ The committee described fake news as a serious threat to public order and democratic processes. The report contains a dedicated section on AI-based fake news.⁶

On AI the committee observed that AI can both create and combat fake news. It recommended using AI tools with human oversight, inter-ministerial coordination to explore the feasibility of licensing requirements for AI content creators, and exploring mandatory labelling of AI-generated videos and images.⁵⁶ According to MediaNama, it also asked the Information and Broadcasting and Electronics and IT ministries jointly to design legal and technological frameworks to identify and prosecute creators of AI-generated misinformation, and said MeitY's deepfake-detection projects must become enforceable national systems.⁷

Other recommendations were that fake news be defined under the existing regulatory mechanisms for print, electronic and digital media; that accountability be ensured for editors, publishers and intermediaries, including stricter fines for repeat offenders by intermediaries; that accreditation of journalists or creators found guilty of spreading fake news be considered for cancellation; that MeitY develop concrete solutions on safe harbour; that major platforms appoint nodal officers in India; and, as MediaNama reported, that Section 79 be revisited and the Press Information Bureau's Fact Check Unit be given statutory backing.⁵⁷ The PRS summary does not mention the Fact Check Unit, and MediaNama's later report on the tabled report did not say the committee recommended new fact-check powers for the PIB, so that point rests on MediaNama's October 2025 account.⁵⁷⁸ Stakeholders consulted by the committee included TV Today Network, Hindustan Times and Network18, which supported labelling of AI-generated content; the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said mandatory labels could build trust subject to consultation with platforms; and the Editors Guild of India proposed a narrow definition of fake news limited to 'deliberately fabricated or manipulated content disseminated with the intent to mislead or harm'.⁸

The sources reviewed did not find a formal action-taken reply to either report. The government's visible responses lie elsewhere. Its written reply in the Lok Sabha on 5 August 2026 to a question from Karti P. Chidambaram on deepfake complaint figures, given by Minister of State Jitin Prasada, supplied no numbers of complaints, takedown requests or compliance with the three-hour deadline and listed instead the provisions of the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that apply, the IT Rules amendment of 10 February 2026, and enforcement bodies including the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and the Sahyog portal.⁹

The IT Rules amendment partly aligns with the committees' direction: it requires intermediaries that offer synthetic-media tools to label synthetic content and embed permanent provenance metadata, and requires large platforms to verify user declarations before publication.¹² It does not follow the Home Affairs committee's proposal that all content be watermarked, the Communications and IT committee's suggestion of licensing AI content creators, or the proposed amendments to the IT Act. The sources reviewed do not show that the committees' reports caused the Rules; MeitY's draft of 22 October 2025 followed the reports by roughly six to nine weeks and referred to parliamentary concerns only in general terms.¹⁰

The reports are notable as parliamentary committee statements on AI-generated content. They push in two directions that the government has treated differently. On criminal-law and technical measures (watermarking, provenance standards, detection tools, victim compensation) they overlap with MeitY's approach of imposing labelling and metadata duties through the IT Rules. On accountability of platforms, they favour tightening safe harbour, a path the stalled Digital India Act was meant to explore. The sources reviewed identify no counterpart in current law to the Communications and IT report's suggestion of licensing AI content creators, and they do not detail its free-speech implications.

Criticism has focused on feasibility and free speech. The dissenting MPs and the Editors Guild argued that stronger penalties and broad definitions could be used to suppress critical reporting, and MediaNama's enforcement concerns about watermarking remain unanswered.²³⁸ The Home Affairs report's recommendation to review safe harbour was viewed by Maken as potentially undermining the Supreme Court's reasoning in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.³

Both reports stand as presented. As of 15 October 2026 the sources reviewed identified no bill or notified rule adopting their principal recommendations on AI, such as watermarking all content, licensing AI content creators or amending the IT Act to compensate victims. The Union IT Minister said on 8 October 2026 that MeitY would release a consultation paper on AI regulation within a month, and the plan to draft a new AI law or amend the IT Act remains at an early stage.