Liability For Actions Under Modified Identities.
1. Introduction
Liability for actions under modified identities refers to the legal responsibility of a person who commits an unlawful act while using an assumed, altered, concealed, substituted, fictitious or impersonated identity.
A person may modify or conceal their identity through various methods, including:
Using a false name or fictitious identity.
Impersonating another individual.
Using another person's photographs, documents or identification credentials.
Creating fake social-media accounts.
Using artificial intelligence (AI) to create deepfake identities.
Concealing identity through digital accounts, anonymous communications or false credentials.
Assuming another person's identity to obtain property, money, employment or legal benefits.
The central legal principle is that changing one's identity does not ordinarily eliminate personal legal responsibility for one's actions.
Courts generally examine the actual person responsible for the conduct, the intention behind the identity modification, the resulting harm and the available evidence.
This subject involves several branches of law:
Criminal law.
Constitutional law.
Cybercrime and information technology law.
Tort law.
Contract law.
Evidence law.
Privacy and data-protection law.
The following discussion focuses primarily on Indian law, with selected comparative principles.
2. Meaning and Nature of Modified Identity
A modified identity is an identity that differs from a person's genuine identity or creates a misleading impression about who that person is.
There are important legal distinctions between different forms of identity modification.
| Type | Meaning | Possible legal consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Pseudonym | Using an alternative name | Usually lawful unless used fraudulently |
| False identity | Deliberately providing fabricated personal details | May constitute an offence |
| Impersonation | Pretending to be another identifiable person | Criminal or civil liability |
| Identity theft | Using another person's identifying information without authority | Criminal and civil consequences |
| Digital impersonation | Creating fake online profiles | Cybercrime liability may arise |
| Deepfake identity | Digitally manipulating someone's face, voice or appearance | Liability depends on the conduct and resulting harm |
| Anonymous identity | Concealing one's actual identity | Not inherently unlawful |
Important distinction: Anonymity, pseudonymity and identity concealment are not automatically illegal. Their legality depends on the purpose, conduct and applicable statutory provisions.
3. Legal Principles Governing Liability
A. Principle of Personal Criminal Responsibility
Criminal liability ordinarily attaches to the individual who commits the offence, even if that individual uses a false identity.
A person cannot generally escape criminal prosecution merely by arguing that the offence was committed under an assumed name.
The prosecution must establish the identity of the actual accused and prove the necessary elements of the offence.
B. Principle of Fraudulent Intention
Where an individual adopts a modified identity to deceive another person, obtain an unlawful benefit or cause wrongful loss, the conduct may attract criminal liability.
Relevant considerations include:
Whether the identity was deliberately falsified.
Whether another person was deceived.
Whether property or money was obtained.
Whether the accused intended wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
Whether the false identity was connected with the alleged offence.
C. Principle of Attribution
Courts must determine who actually performed or controlled the unlawful conduct.
Merely establishing that an offence originated from a particular account, telephone number, computer or digital profile may not conclusively establish the identity of its operator.
Electronic evidence, account records, device information, financial transactions and other corroborative evidence may be relevant.
D. Principle of Accountability for Impersonation
A person who unlawfully assumes another person's identity may be responsible for the resulting deception, financial loss, reputational injury or other legally recognised harm.
The liability may arise independently under criminal law, civil law or both.
4. Statutory Framework Under Indian Law
The principal legislation governing liability for modified identities in India includes the following.
A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024 and replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 319 – Cheating by personation
This is one of the most directly relevant provisions.
It covers a person who cheats by pretending to be someone else, knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that the person or another person is someone other than their actual identity.
Punishment: imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to five years, or fine, or both.
Examples:
Pretending to be another individual to obtain money.
Impersonating an employee to obtain confidential information.
Appearing in an examination using another person's identity.
Using a false identity to obtain a benefit.
Section 318 – Cheating
This provision may apply where a modified identity is used to deceive someone and dishonestly induce the person to deliver property or act or omit to act in a manner causing or likely to cause harm.
Sections 335, 336 and 340 – False documents and forgery
These provisions may become relevant where a person uses modified identities through fabricated documents, forged signatures, false certificates or forged electronic records.
The applicable provision depends on the nature of the document and the accused's intention.
B. Information Technology Act, 2000
The Information Technology Act is particularly important in cases involving digital identities.
1. Section 66C – Identity Theft
This provision punishes fraudulent or dishonest use of another person's:
Electronic signature.
Password.
Other unique identification feature.
Punishment:
Imprisonment up to three years.
Fine up to ₹1 lakh.
IndiaCode
2. Section 66D – Cheating by Personation Using Computer Resources
This provision applies where a person cheats by impersonation using a communication device or computer resource.
Examples include:
Creating fake online profiles to deceive people.
Pretending to be a bank representative.
Using another person's identity to obtain money.
Conducting fraudulent transactions through false digital identities.
Punishment:
Imprisonment up to three years.
Fine up to ₹1 lakh.
IndiaCode+1
3. Section 66E – Violation of Privacy
Where identity modification involves capturing, publishing or transmitting images of another person's private areas without consent, Section 66E may apply if its statutory ingredients are established.
4. Sections 67 and 67A
These provisions may apply where identity manipulation is accompanied by publication or transmission of obscene or sexually explicit material in electronic form.
The mere creation of a fake identity does not automatically establish an offence under these provisions.
C. Constitutional Provisions
The Constitution of India also provides important safeguards.
| Provision | Legal significance |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before law and equal protection of laws |
| Article 19(1)(a) | Freedom of speech and expression, including relevant questions of anonymous expression |
| Article 21 | Protection of life, personal liberty, dignity and privacy |
| Article 20(1) | Protection against retrospective criminal punishment |
| Article 20(3) | Protection against compelled self-incrimination |
A person using a pseudonym does not automatically lose constitutional protection. Equally, constitutional freedoms do not provide immunity for fraud, impersonation, defamation or other independently established offences.
D. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam governs the admissibility and proof of evidence.
Electronic evidence can be particularly important in modified-identity cases.
Relevant evidence may include:
IP address records.
Email communications.
Login records.
Device information.
Digital photographs.
CCTV footage.
Bank transaction records.
Electronic signatures.
Platform-generated records.
The admissibility requirements for electronic records must be examined under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, where applicable.
5. Important Judicial Decisions and Case Laws
The following decisions provide important principles concerning impersonation, identity theft, fraudulent representation and electronic evidence.
Case 1. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Vimal Kumar Surana (2010)
Supreme Court of India · 1 December 2010
Legal issue: Whether conduct prohibited by a special regulatory statute could also attract criminal prosecution under the general criminal law.
Judicial principle:
The Supreme Court recognised that the same conduct may constitute violations of a special statutory law as well as distinct criminal offences, provided the legal ingredients of those offences are independently satisfied.
The Court considered offences including impersonation and forgery under the IPC.
Relevance to modified identities:
A person cannot necessarily escape criminal liability merely because identity manipulation occurred in the course of conduct regulated by another special statute.
For example, a person who uses a false professional identity and also commits forgery may face separate proceedings if the ingredients of the respective offences are established.
Legal significance: The existence of one statutory proceeding does not automatically exclude prosecution for distinct criminal offences.
IndiaCode+1
Case 2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Supreme Court of India · (2015) 5 SCC 1
Legal issue: Constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional because it violated Article 19(1)(a) and was not saved by Article 19(2).
Relevance to modified identities:
This decision is important because online identity-related disputes must be handled consistently with constitutional freedom of expression.
A fake profile or anonymous account should not automatically be treated as criminal merely because it expresses an unpopular or controversial opinion.
However, the judgment does not invalidate Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act.
Legal significance: Courts must distinguish protected expression from independently punishable impersonation, fraud and other unlawful conduct.
Indian Kanoon+1
Case 3. Dipakkumar Sureshbhai Ramani v. State of Gujarat (2019)
Gujarat High Court · 24 July 2019
Legal issue: Creation of a fake Facebook identity in another person's name.
Facts and judicial treatment:
The case concerned the creation of a Facebook account in the complainant's name and communications through that account.
The Gujarat High Court recognised that creating a fake Facebook identity and communicating through it could constitute cheating by personation under Section 66D of the IT Act.
The Court also dealt with the applicability of the invalidated Section 66A.
Relevance to modified identities:
This decision is directly relevant to digital impersonation.
It demonstrates that the use of a fake online identity is capable of attracting criminal liability when the necessary ingredients of cheating by personation are established.
Legal significance: Digital identity manipulation is not necessarily protected simply because it takes place on a social-media platform.
IndiaCode
Case 4. Sri Amit Garg v. State of Karnataka (2022)
Karnataka High Court · 26 July 2022
Legal issue: Application of Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.
Judicial discussion:
The Karnataka High Court examined the statutory ingredients of identity theft and cheating by personation.
The decision discusses the distinction between:
Fraudulent or dishonest use of another person's unique identification feature.
Cheating through personation using a computer resource.
Relevance to modified identities:
It helps establish that identity theft and online impersonation are legally distinct concepts, although the same conduct may satisfy both provisions.
For instance, using another person's password to access an account and then impersonating that person to deceive a third party may raise questions under both Sections 66C and 66D.
Indian Kanoon+2
Case 5. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Supreme Court of India · (2020) 7 SCC 1
Legal issue: Admissibility of electronic records as evidence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified the requirements governing the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the former Indian Evidence Act.
It explained the importance of the statutory certificate for computer-output electronic records, subject to the recognised legal exceptions and circumstances.
Relevance to modified identities:
In cases involving fake accounts, impersonation, digital communications and identity theft, the prosecution must establish its electronic evidence in accordance with the applicable evidentiary law.
The decision is particularly useful when determining whether screenshots, downloaded messages, computer records or other electronic material can be relied upon.
For proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the corresponding current statutory framework, including Section 63, must be considered.
Indian Kanoon
Case 6. International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials v. Nimra Cerglass (P) Ltd. (2016)
Supreme Court of India · (2016) 1 SCC 348
Legal issue: Essential ingredients of cheating and dishonest inducement.
Judicial principle:
The Supreme Court explained that criminal cheating requires a false representation, knowledge of its falsity, an intention to deceive and dishonest inducement.
The dishonest intention must exist at the time of the inducement. A subsequent failure to fulfil an obligation does not, by itself, establish cheating.
Relevance to modified identities:
Suppose a person assumes a false identity while entering into a commercial transaction. The prosecution must establish that the false identity was used with the requisite dishonest intention.
Merely using an alternative name, without the necessary elements of deception and dishonest inducement, does not automatically establish cheating.
Legal significance: Criminal liability depends on the ingredients of the offence, not merely on the existence of an altered identity.
IndiaCode
Case 7. Naveen Makhija v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)
Madhya Pradesh High Court · 28 December 2023
Legal issue: Creation of a fake social-media identity and misuse of another person's photographs.
Judicial treatment:
The decision concerned allegations involving a fake social-media profile created in another person's name and the use of obscene photographs and vulgar communications.
The judgment addressed the application of the Information Technology Act's identity-related provisions.
Relevance to modified identities:
The case illustrates how digital impersonation may be accompanied by additional unlawful conduct, including harassment, reputational injury and misuse of personal images.
Legal significance: Identity manipulation may give rise to multiple legal consequences where the evidence establishes separate statutory offences.
IndiaCode
6. Civil Liability for Actions Under Modified Identities
Criminal prosecution is not the only possible consequence. An individual whose identity has been misused may also seek civil remedies.
A. Liability for Defamation
Where a person creates a false identity and publishes defamatory statements in another person's name, or makes defamatory statements about another individual, civil liability may arise.
The claimant generally needs to establish the applicable elements of defamation, including the defamatory nature of the statement, identification of the claimant and publication to a third party, subject to relevant defences.
B. Liability for Invasion of Privacy
A person who unlawfully uses another individual's photographs, personal information, communications or identifying details may face legal consequences for infringement of privacy rights.
The constitutional right to privacy is recognised under Article 21.
C. Liability for Fraudulent Transactions
If an individual assumes another person's identity to obtain money, property or financial advantages, the affected person may pursue appropriate civil remedies, including recovery of money and damages where legally justified.
D. Liability for Intellectual Property Infringement
Modified identities may also involve unauthorised use of:
Registered trademarks.
Business names.
Logos.
Copyrighted photographs.
Commercial branding.
Depending on the circumstances, such conduct may give rise to trademark infringement, passing off or copyright infringement.
E. Liability for Emotional and Reputational Harm
Where impersonation causes demonstrable reputational injury, harassment or other legally recognised harm, the victim may seek appropriate remedies under applicable civil law.
7. Liability in Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake Identity Cases
Oh! It is a real identity crisis, thanks to AI - The Economic Times
Best AI Voice Cloning Tools in 2026: 8 Tools Tested - Flashloop
9
Artificial intelligence has introduced new forms of modified identities.
A person may create a synthetic identity using:
AI-generated photographs.
Face-swapping technology.
Voice cloning.
Fabricated video recordings.
AI-generated identity documents.
Synthetic social-media profiles.
A. Deepfake Impersonation
Suppose an individual creates a video showing another person apparently making a false statement.
If the video is used to deceive people, obtain money, damage reputation or commit another unlawful act, applicable criminal and civil provisions may be attracted.
B. Voice Cloning
Suppose an individual clones a business executive's voice and instructs an employee to transfer company funds.
Depending on the evidence and circumstances, this conduct may constitute cheating, cheating by personation and identity-related cybercrime.
C. AI-Generated False Documents
Creating or using fabricated identity documents may attract provisions concerning forgery, false documents and cheating under the BNS.
D. Liability of the Person Operating the AI System
The person who intentionally creates, directs or uses the modified identity for unlawful purposes may be liable if the elements of the relevant offence are proved.
The mere use of AI software does not establish criminal responsibility. The prosecution must establish the person's participation, intention where required, and connection with the unlawful conduct.
E. Liability of Technology Platforms
A social-media platform or intermediary is not automatically criminally liable merely because a user creates a fake profile.
Its liability depends on the applicable statutory obligations, the nature of its participation, the circumstances of the case and whether the statutory conditions for any available protection are satisfied.
8. Liability of Different Persons Involved
| Person involved | Possible liability |
|---|---|
| Person creating a false identity | Impersonation, identity theft or forgery, depending on conduct |
| Person using another person's credentials | Identity theft under IT Act Section 66C, if its ingredients are satisfied |
| Person using a fake account to cheat | IT Act Section 66D and relevant BNS provisions |
| Person assisting the impersonator | Abetment or conspiracy, where established |
| Person knowingly using forged documents | Relevant BNS forgery provisions |
| Person publishing defamatory content | Civil or criminal defamation, as applicable |
| Person misusing private images | Privacy-related and other applicable statutory liability |
| Technology intermediary | Liability determined by applicable intermediary law and statutory conditions |
9. Defences Available to a Person Accused of Identity Modification
Not every alteration of identity constitutes a criminal offence. A person accused of identity modification may raise appropriate legal defences.
1. Absence of dishonest intention
The accused may establish that there was no intention to deceive, cheat or obtain an unlawful benefit.
2. Lawful pseudonym or stage name
Using a pen name, artistic identity, professional alias or pseudonym is not inherently unlawful.
3. Lack of proof of authorship
The prosecution must establish that the accused actually created, controlled or used the relevant account or identity.
4. Absence of fraudulent use
The mere possession of another person's information does not necessarily establish the fraudulent or dishonest use required under Section 66C.
5. Absence of cheating
For Section 66D, the prosecution must establish cheating by personation through a computer resource or communication device.
6. Insufficient electronic evidence
The accused may challenge the authenticity, integrity, attribution or admissibility of electronic records.
7. Constitutional protection
Where the conduct involves legitimate anonymous expression or lawful use of a pseudonym, constitutional protections may be relevant.
10. Judicial Tests for Determining Liability
When deciding whether a person is liable for actions under a modified identity, courts may examine the following questions:
| Judicial test | Question before the court |
|---|---|
| Identity test | Who actually committed the act? |
| Intention test | Was the identity modified deliberately and dishonestly? |
| Representation test | Was another person deceived or misled? |
| Attribution test | Can the act be connected to the accused? |
| Causation test | Did the conduct cause the alleged injury or loss? |
| Evidence test | Is the electronic or documentary evidence reliable and admissible? |
| Statutory test | Are the essential ingredients of the relevant offence established? |
| Proportionality test | Is the proposed legal restriction consistent with constitutional protections? |
These are analytical questions rather than a single formal judicial test applicable in every case.
11. Difference Between IPC and BNS Provisions
The date on which the conduct occurred is important when determining the applicable criminal law.
| Former IPC provision | Current BNS provision | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| Section 416 | Section 319(1) | Cheating by personation (definition) |
| Section 419 | Section 319(2) | Punishment for cheating by personation |
| Section 420 | Section 318 | Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property |
| Sections 463–465 | Sections 335–336 | False documents and forgery |
| Section 468 | Section 336(3) | Forgery for purpose of cheating |
| Section 471 | Section 340(2) | Using a forged document as genuine |
The BNS generally applies to offences committed on or after 1 July 2024. Earlier offences remain subject to the applicable former IPC provisions, subject to the relevant savings provisions and Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
12. Practical Examples
The following hypothetical situations demonstrate how liability may arise.
Example 1: Fake identity for financial fraud
A person creates a bank account using another individual's identity and obtains money through fraudulent representations.
Possible consequences:
BNS Section 318.
BNS Section 319.
IT Act Section 66C, if its requirements are satisfied.
IT Act Section 66D, where cheating by personation through a computer resource is established.
Example 2: Impersonation on social media
A person creates a fake social-media account in another person's name and sends fraudulent messages to that person's contacts.
Possible consequences:
IT Act Section 66D.
IT Act Section 66C, if another person's unique identification feature is dishonestly or fraudulently used.
Applicable BNS cheating provisions.
Example 3: False professional identity
An individual pretends to be a qualified lawyer or government officer to obtain money from members of the public.
Possible consequences:
Cheating by personation.
Cheating.
Forgery, if false documents are created or used.
Additional statutory offences, depending on the circumstances.
Example 4: AI-generated impersonation
A person creates an AI-generated video impersonating a company director and uses it to obtain confidential information.
Possible consequences:
Cheating by personation.
Identity-related cybercrime, where the statutory ingredients are satisfied.
Other offences depending on the method of obtaining information and resulting harm.
Example 5: Anonymous political or artistic identity
A person uses a pseudonym to express opinions or publish creative work without pretending to be a specific person for fraudulent purposes.
Generally, the mere use of that pseudonym does not create criminal liability.
13. Remedies Available to Victims
A person whose identity has been unlawfully modified or misused may consider the following remedies:
File a complaint with the local police or cybercrime police station.
Report financial cyber fraud through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal: National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
Preserve screenshots, URLs, account details, transaction records and communications.
Report impersonation to the relevant social-media platform.
Seek removal or restriction of unlawful content through applicable legal procedures.
Seek an injunction against continued impersonation.
Pursue damages or other civil remedies where legally available.
Approach the appropriate court for relief where the facts justify judicial intervention.
14. Important Legal Principles Emerging from the Case Laws
The principal principles can be summarised as follows:
1. Identity modification does not create immunity: A person remains responsible for unlawful conduct committed under an assumed identity.
2. Mens rea is important: Criminal liability must be established through the required intention and other ingredients of the relevant offence.
3. Impersonation is distinguishable from anonymity: Lawful pseudonyms and anonymous expression cannot automatically be equated with criminal impersonation.
4. Digital impersonation is punishable: Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act address different forms of identity theft and online personation.
5. Electronic evidence must be properly established: Digital records must satisfy the applicable evidentiary requirements.
6. Multiple proceedings may be possible: A single course of conduct may attract different statutory provisions if their respective ingredients are independently satisfied.
7. Constitutional protections remain applicable: Article 19 and Article 21 must be considered alongside the state's legitimate interest in preventing fraud and protecting individuals.
15. Conclusion
Liability for actions under modified identities is an important and developing area of criminal, constitutional, civil and cyber law.
The fundamental legal principle is that a person cannot ordinarily avoid responsibility by changing their name, appearance, digital identity or other identifying characteristics.
Indian law provides several mechanisms for dealing with identity-based wrongdoing, particularly under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The decisions in Vimal Kumar Surana, Shreya Singhal, Dipakkumar Sureshbhai Ramani, Sri Amit Garg and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar provide useful judicial principles concerning criminal accountability, impersonation, constitutional freedoms and electronic evidence.
Ultimately, liability depends on four essential considerations:
The actual identity of the person responsible.
The intention behind the modified identity.
The unlawful conduct committed through that identity.
The admissible evidence connecting the accused with that conduct.
Therefore, modification of identity may be lawful, but using a modified identity as an instrument of fraud, impersonation, deception or other unlawful conduct may attract criminal and civil liability.
16. Important Sources for Further Legal Research
| Source | Subject |
|---|---|
| India Code | BNS, IT Act and other legislation |
| Supreme Court of India | Supreme Court judgments |
| Gujarat High Court | Relevant High Court decisions |
| Karnataka High Court | Cybercrime and impersonation cases |
| Supreme Court judgments and orders | Judicial research |
Academic note: Some cases discussed above were decided under the former IPC or former Evidence Act. They remain relevant for their legal principles, but their statutory provisions must be distinguished from the current BNS and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The cited High Court decisions are persuasive outside their respective jurisdictions, whereas Supreme Court decisions are binding precedents under Article 141.
A useful next research topic is: Judicial Review of Digital Identity Manipulation, Deepfake Impersonation and Identity Theft – Detailed Explanation with Supreme Court and High Court Case Laws.
RELATED Blog
comments