It began like a modern tale of second chances. A client of mine, recently divorced, was looking to rebuild her life. She met someone on a matrimonial website — educated, mature, seemingly kind, and divorced too. When he asked for her divorce decree, she reached out to my colleague and me. We shared it.
But my colleague Vandana, with the instinct of someone seasoned by the courtroom, paused: “Why don’t you ask him for his too?”
He promptly sent one and our client, very happily forwarded it to us. What followed was a revelation — not just of deception, but of the frightening ease with which artificial intelligence is being used to commit fraud.
It wasn’t issued by a court. It was manufactured — by someone with access to AI and a few keywords. The decree he shared looked like a judgment. It had the appearance of formality — a seal, a signature, even some generic language about “marital discord.” But it was fake. A closer look exposed glaring errors: no diary number, no representation info, no appearances, no procedural history. To a layperson, it might pass. To a lawyer, it screamed fraud. I’ve uploaded the document (with annotations) to show how fakes can look authentic but aren’t.
As lawyers, we’re used to scrutinizing documents. But for an average person looking for companionship or stability, these deceptions are nearly impossible to detect. The court decree looked real enough — and in the age of digital trust, that’s all it takes to con someone.
The Legal Vacuum Around AI-Facilitated Deceit
India’s legal system is yet to fully grapple with the regulatory, criminal, and civil challenges posed by generative AI. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) has come into effect, but its enforcement and scope remain evolving. Misuse of AI for identity impersonation, forging documents, or impersonating state authority is certainly punishable under existing laws — but these laws were not designed with ChatGPT or DALL·E in mind.
Falsifying a court order is no small matter. It may trigger:
- Section 420 of the IPC/BNS: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 463 (now BNS equivalent 336): Forgery.
- Section 468/471: Forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged documents.
- Section 182/193: False information to public servant, perjury.
- Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy.
But the reality is grimmer: most such cases don’t even reach the courtroom. Survivors are often too exhausted, or too afraid to report. And if they do, they face an overburdened system that often fails to prioritize such cases.
The Civil Route: Restitution, Damages, and Beyond
Victims of such deceit can also pursue civil remedies — particularly for mental harassment, reputational harm, and inducement to enter a relationship under false pretenses. Under Section 9 of the CPC, a victim can file a civil suit for damages — both compensatory and punitive — arising from deceit and misrepresentation.
There may also be quasi-contractual liability under the Indian Contract Act if one party derived unjust enrichment at the expense of the other without a lawful contract.
But litigation is long, emotionally draining, and expensive. The emotional toll alone keeps most victims from pursuing redress — especially when the fraud does not involve tangible property or large sums of money.
Can Platforms Be Held Liable?
What about the role of the platforms?
When matrimonial platforms allow users to upload unverifiable information — and don’t flag suspicious behavior even after being notified — questions of accountability arise. Can a user file a consumer complaint against the platform for negligence or lack of verification?
The answer is complex. Platforms hide behind the “intermediary” protection of the IT Act, claiming they are not responsible for user-generated content. However, if they fail to act on complaints or do not create robust verification mechanisms despite being aware of the risks, this protection could be pierced.
Writ petitions or public interest litigations may be filed seeking better enforcement or standard-setting for matrimonial platforms — especially where women are disproportionately at risk.
Beyond the Law: A Need for Public Legal Literacy
This incident — laughable in one moment and deeply distressing in the next — is a wake-up call. It reminds us how law, technology, and human vulnerability are intersecting in dangerously new ways.
It also reminds us that legal awareness is not a luxury — it’s a necessity. In this case, the woman had already been through a divorce, had her own decree, and still wondered if a different state might issue orders differently. That’s how pervasive legal confusion can be.
Today, AI can generate legal-looking documents, simulate official stamps, and even replicate handwriting. Tomorrow, it may go further — deepfake evidence, clone identities, or create entire email trails. The safeguards we needed yesterday are already outdated.
Conclusion: A Call for Vigilance and Reform
Justice is more than a court process — it’s the ability to identify and respond to injustice swiftly. As a lawyer, I see how unregulated technology is creating new battlegrounds for deceit. As a citizen, I worry about the speed at which AI can undermine trust in institutions.
But I also believe in the resilience of our legal system — and its ability to evolve.
This article is not just about one forged decree. It is a mirror held up to a system, asking it to respond — faster, stronger, and with empathy.
Let this be a starting point for reform. Not after damage is done — but while we still have time to draw the line.
Leave a Reply