MHA Warning on Deepfake Welfare Scheme Ads

MHA Warning on Deepfake Welfare Scheme Ads

General Studies Paper II: Governance, Government Policies

Why in News? 

Recently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) warned against deepfake advertisements impersonating political leaders to promote fraudulent welfare schemes.

Deepfake Welfare Schemes Ads in India 

• Nature: Deepfakes are artificially generated or manipulated audio, video or images that imitate a real person’s appearance, voice or actions.
  • Using artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep-learning and generative-AI techniques, criminals make public figures appear to announce benefits or endorse schemes they never supported. 
  • Unlike ordinary misinformation, deepfakes exploit the apparent authenticity of a person’s face and voice, making fraudulent claims harder to identify through casual observation.
• Trends: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) have flagged a dangerous trend where cybercriminals deploy highly convincing AI-generated videos.
  • The content impersonates high-profile political figures, including the Prime Minister of India, the Union Finance Minister, and various state Chief Ministers. 
  • These simulated authorities appear to endorse non-existent public subsidies, direct cash transfers, or high-return investment portfolios.
    • Fraudsters target low-income households, unemployed youth, pensioners, rural residents and digitally inexperienced users.
  • According to the National Cybercrime Threat Analytics Unit (NCTAU), these advertisements are heavily circulated as paid political promotions.
    • The scams primarily plague Meta-owned channels like Facebook and Instagram. A growing cross-border trend involves victims receiving secondary phishing calls from international numbers, predominantly using Pakistan’s +92 country code, claiming the recipient was randomly selected for state payouts.
• Modus Operandi:
  • Clickbait: Scammers run sponsored social media ads featuring deepfakes that embed a malicious link, phone number, or a WhatsApp chat trigger.
  • Advance-Fee Trap: Once the victim engages, fraudsters demand upfront micro-payments under the pretext of mandatory registration fees, GST, processing charges, or administrative taxes required to release the welfare funds.
  • UPI PIN Manipulation: Alternatively, operators deploy “spin-and-win” or “scratch-card” cashbacks. Victims are redirected to a cloned payment page and manipulated into entering their UPI PIN under the false pretext of “receiving” money, which instead instantly debits their bank accounts.
• Precautions:
  • Citizens should verify schemes through official government websites and department announcements.
    • They should never disclose OTPs, PINs, passwords or confidential banking credentials to unknown persons. 
    • They should avoid suspicious links, verify the identity of callers and refrain from paying unofficial charges to obtain purported benefits. 

Impact of Deepfake Welfare Scheme Ads

• Deepfake advertisements impersonating political leaders can undermine citizens’ confidence in official government communication.
  • Repeated exposure to manipulated content can weaken confidence in government communication, even when genuine information is available. 
• Welfare delivery depends on accurate information about eligibility, benefits and application procedures. Fake advertisements can mislead citizens.
  • They may also create confusion about genuine schemes, discouraging some people from accessing legitimate public services.
• Political impersonation can distort public understanding of government policies and leaders’ statements. Fabricated endorsements may weaken informed political participation.
• India’s growing reliance on digital public services and electronic payments requires citizens to trust online communication.
  • Deepfake scams can reduce confidence in digital platforms, discourage service adoption and increase demand for offline verification.
• Repeated impersonation can damage the credibility of public institutions, even when the institutions themselves are not responsible for the fraudulent content.
  • Legitimate digital infrastructures—such as Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) and the Unified Payments Interface (UPI)—suffer reputational damage when cloned by fraudsters. 
• Deepfake-enabled fraud can result in direct financial losses, identity misuse, complaint-handling costs and investigative expenditure.
• The issue involves competing public interests: freedom of speech, privacy, dignity, access to information and protection from fraud.

Legal and Institutional Framework in India to Combat Deepfakes and Digital Fraud

• Information Technology Act, 2000: The IT Act, 2000 serves as the primary legislation handling cyber offenses.
  • Section 66C criminalizes identity theft, while Section 66D penalizes cheating by personation using computer resources, effectively covering AI voice-cloning and deepfake morphing. 
  • Section 66E safeguards privacy against non-consensual intimate media, and Sections 67 and 67A penalize publishing sexually explicit or obscene digital content.
  • Section 69A provides for blocking access to specified online information under statutory conditions, while Section 79 establishes a conditional intermediary-liability framework.
• IT Rules 2026 Amendments: The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended, establish due-diligence obligations for intermediaries.
  • The Information Technology Rules, 2021 were crucially updated via the 2026 Amendment Rules to introduce a strict regime for synthetically generated information (SGI). 
  • Social media platforms must deploy mandatory AI-labeling and embedded provenance metadata covering at least 10% of the media runtime. 
  • Intermediaries face compressed takedown timelines of 3 hours for harmful content, or they lose their safe-harbor protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Replacing the older IPC, the BNS, 2023 prosecutes the criminal intent behind digital fraud.
  • Section 319 targets cheating by personation, and Section 336 penalizes digital forgery, which applies directly to fabricated AI documents or synthetic voice clips created to cause harm. 
  • Section 353 punishes the creation or dissemination of false, misleading information that triggers public mischief or social fear.
    • Applicability depends on the conduct and evidence; not every manipulated video automatically constitutes a criminal offence.
• Data Protection and Evidence Laws: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 penalizes the unauthorized processing of biometric and personal data used to train AI models without consent, imposing fines up to ₹250 crore.
  • The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 modernizes the judicial system by defining explicit rules for the admissibility of digital evidence in trials.
• Institutional Framework: The Ministry of Home Affairs operates the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to synchronize inter-state law enforcement actions.
  • The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) operates under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and supports cybersecurity incident response.
    • CERT-In issued an advisory on deepfake threats in November 2024, alongside awareness material and protective guidance.
  • Citizens can lodge complaints directly on the official National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal or dial the national helpline 1930 for rapid financial freezes. 
  • The automated SAHYOG Portal issues instant content removal notices to platforms.
  • The Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System helps coordinate efforts to prevent funds from being siphoned off.
    • In July 2026, the government reported approving 13 responsible-AI projects focused on deepfake detection and conducting 6,650 cybersecurity-awareness workshops benefiting more than 11.37 lakh people.

Challenges in the Framework

• Absence of a Dedicated Deepfake Statute:
  • Current laws address deepfakes indirectly (via cheating, obscenity, or defamation) rather than defining “synthetic media” or “deepfakes” explicitly as a standalone, aggravated offence with graded penalties.
• Jurisdictional & Transnational Bottlenecks:
  • Fraudsters and deepfake creators frequently operate across state borders or via foreign-routed servers, VPNs, and encrypted darknet channels, making attribution difficult and cross-border legal assistance (MLATs) painfully slow. 
• Mule Accounts and Financial Layering:
  • Digital financial fraud relies heavily on multi-layered networks of rented or scammed bank accounts (“mule accounts”) and instant UPI/crypto shuffling, outstripping the speed of manual police investigations. 
• Deficit in Grassroots Forensics & Capacity:
  • Local police stations lack AI-literate personnel and real-time deepfake forensic tools. India faces a severe deficit of trained cybersecurity professionals (estimated shortfall in millions). 
• Tension Between Censorship and Free Speech:
  • Stricter takedown mandates (such as 3-hour windows) risk over-compliance by intermediaries, potentially chilling legitimate political dissent, investigative journalism, satire, or artistic expression protected under Article 19(1)(a). 
• Procedural Attrition and Under-Reporting:
  • Complex reporting procedures, social stigma (especially in cases of deepfake sextortion or blackmail), and low public trust lead to high rates of under-reporting and case abandonment before trials even commence.

Way Forward 

• India should strengthen AI-powered deepfake detection systems capable of analysing facial movements, voice patterns, audio-video synchronisation and digital manipulation artefacts.
  • Such tools can help identify suspicious content before it spreads widely. 
• Government departments should adopt cryptographic signatures, secure publishing systems and content-provenance standards for official announcements.
  • Technologies such as the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) can help establish the origin and editing history of supported media. 
• Social-media platforms should improve the detection and rapid review of fraudulent advertisements impersonating public officials.
  • Measures should include stronger advertiser verification, clear reporting mechanisms, prompt action on legally actionable content and safeguards against repeat offenders. 
• India should improve coordination between the Information Technology Act, IT Rules, criminal law and emerging AI-governance measures.
  • Clear operational guidance can help distinguish malicious impersonation and financial fraud from lawful synthetic media.
• Digital literacy must extend beyond basic internet access to include the ability to assess the authenticity of online information.
  • Awareness campaigns should teach citizens to verify scheme announcements through official government portals, question urgent payment demands and avoid sharing OTPs or banking credentials. 
  • Schools, colleges, panchayats, community organisations and public-service centres can help reach groups with limited digital access. 
• India should support responsible-AI research, independent evaluation of detection tools and training for cybercrime investigators.
  • Universities, technology companies and public institutions can collaborate on multilingual detection and forensic capabilities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):

1. Why has the Ministry of Home Affairs warned against fake welfare scheme advertisements?

The MHA warned of rising financial fraud involving deepfake political advertisements promoting fictitious welfare schemes, cashback rewards and financial assistance.

2. How are scammers using deepfake videos of PM Modi and other political leaders?

Scammers manipulate leaders’ faces and voices to advertise fake benefits, redirect users to fraudulent websites or WhatsApp chats, and demand payments.

3. What is a deepfake welfare scheme scam?

It is a fraud using AI-manipulated videos of public figures to promote nonexistent government benefits and steal money through fake fees or UPI transactions.

4. How can people identify fake government scheme advertisements?

Verify schemes through official government portals, distrust advance-fee demands, avoid suspicious links, and never enter a UPI PIN to receive money.

5. Are deepfake videos of Chief Ministers and ministers being used for fraud?

Yes. The I4C reported fake advertisements impersonating Chief Ministers, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to promote fraudulent schemes.

Disclaimer: Information in this article is based on official announcements and public records. Details may evolve over time.

Also Read: Parliamentary Committee Recommended Stricter Laws to Tackle Fake News