Doxxing and deepfakes represent a gendered threat to digital citizenship. Discuss the adequacy of India's legal framework.

Doxxing means publishing someone's personal details without consent. Deepfakes are AI-fabricated images or videos. Both turn online spaces into tools of intimidation. Women bear the heaviest cost, so these harms undermine the equal digital citizenship that follows from Articles 14, 19 and 21 (Puttaswamy, 2017). India's legal response is growing but still reactive and fragmented.

Why the threat is gendered

• Sexualised harm: deepfakes are often used to create non-consensual intimate imagery. Social stigma makes the damage to a woman's reputation long-lasting.
• Offline spillover: doxxing turns online hostility into threats at home. Women activists, journalists and protesters face higher risk.
• Chilling effect: fear of exposure leads women to self-censor or leave public debate, which hollows out Article 19(1)(a).
• Surveillance multiplier: NITI Aayog warns that State use of facial recognition reduces anonymity in public spaces and chills free speech [2]. Once a woman is identified, she is easier to doxx.

Adequacy of the framework: strengths

• The IT Act, 2000 covers identity theft, impersonation, privacy violations and obscene content. It also allows blocking orders [3].
• The IT Rules were amended in February 2026. Platforms must curb unlawful synthetic content and label AI content with traceable metadata [3].
• The BNS criminalises stalking, voyeurism and criminal intimidation.
• The DPDP Act, 2023 gives individuals rights over their personal data [1].

Adequacy: gaps

• No specific doxxing offence. Victims have to piece together scattered provisions.
• State exemptions: DPDP rights do not apply when data is processed to prevent or investigate offences. The Centre can also exempt agencies on public-order grounds, and PRS flags the risk of excessive retention [1]. Data collected by the State can feed doxxing with no remedy for the victim.
• Split accountability: the camera operator, data vendor and platform each fall under a different law, so each can shift blame to the others.
• Reactive enforcement: takedowns depend on complaints, and removed content resurfaces across platforms.
• Gender-blind drafting: laws treat these harms as single pieces of content rather than a pattern of gendered abuse.

In sum, India has the basic building blocks, but it lacks an integrated framework centred on victims. A way forward would be to:

• create a clear doxxing offence
• set time-bound, victim-initiated takedowns that work across platforms
• narrow the DPDP exemptions and add limits on how long data is kept [1]
• adopt NITI Aayog's facial recognition safeguards [2]
• set up gender-sensitive cyber cells

These steps would make online spaces safer for women, in line with SDG 5.b and the constitutional promise of dignity.