Young women, particularly those transitioning from adolescence into adulthood are emerging as one of the most vulnerable cohorts in this evolving landscape. While India’s Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 provides a strong legal framework for minors, a significant gap arises at the intersection of AI-driven exploitation and young adult women between eighteen and twenty-five years of age.
By Advocate Aishwarya Srivastava
WHEN TECHNOLOGY OUTPACES LAW
The digital age has fundamentally altered the nature of crime. Exploitation today no longer requires physical proximity; it thrives in algorithms, anonymity, and artificial intelligence.
The convergence of data, machine learning and social media has created an ecosystem where identity itself can be replicated, distorted and weaponised.
Young women, particularly those transitioning from adolescence into adulthood are emerging as one of the most vulnerable cohorts in this evolving landscape.
While India’s Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 provides a strong legal framework for minors, a significant gap arises at the intersection of AI-driven exploitation and young adult women between eighteen and twenty-five years of age.
This group, though legally adult, remains socially, economically, and psychologically exposed, yet falls outside the enhanced statutory protection available to minors. The result is not merely a legislative gap but a structural and jurisprudential vacuum.
EXPANDING SPECTRUM OF AI-DRIVEN EXPLOITATION
AI-enabled exploitation represents a qualitative shift from traditional cybercrime. It now includes deepfake pornography generated without consent, AI-generated sexual abuse material, sextortion using fabricated identities, digital grooming aided by behavioural profiling and non-consensual image morphing.
International frameworks on ICT-facilitated abuse recognise these forms as extensions of sexual exploitation in the digital domain.
What distinguishes such offences is the ability to create hyper-realistic but entirely fabricated content, thereby eroding the evidentiary boundary between truth and manipulation.
The harm is not diminished because the image is synthetic; rather, it is intensified by permanence, virality, and reputational destruction.
EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK: A FRAGMENTED RESPONSEe
India’s legal response remains fragmented.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 criminalises sexual offences against minors, including digital exploitation. Section 15 penalises storage and dissemination of child sexual abuse material.
The Supreme Court in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024) clarified that even viewing or possessing such material constitutes an offence, reinforcing that digital acts perpetuate real harm.
The Act’s definition extends to computer-generated imagery involving children, indicating partial foresight in addressing emerging technologies, yet its protection ceases strictly at the age of eighteen.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides a broader but technology-neutral framework. Sections 67 and 67A criminalise the publication of obscene and sexually explicit material in electronic form, while Section 67B addresses child sexual abuse material.
Sections 66C and 66D deal with identity theft and impersonation, and Section 66E penalises violation of privacy through unauthorised capture or transmission of images.
These provisions, though significant, were enacted in a pre-artificial intelligence era and are therefore applied through interpretative extension rather than explicit statutory intent.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 continues to criminalise obscenity, voyeurism, stalking, and related offences, but does not directly address synthetic media or AI-generated exploitation.
At the constitutional level, Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirms the right to privacy, dignity, and informational self-determination, yet requires statutory articulation for effective enforcement.
CORE LEGAL VACUUM
Despite the existing framework, critical gaps persist.
There is no dedicated legislation addressing deepfakes or AI-generated sexual content, forcing courts to stretch existing provisions such as obscenity, defamation, or cheating to fit novel harms.
The protective shield of POCSO ends abruptly at eighteen, creating a legal cliff for individuals who remain equally vulnerable in digital environments.
Non-consensual image-based abuse is not recognised as a distinct offence, resulting in fragmented prosecution and inconsistent remedies. Platform liability remains largely reactive, as existing due diligence obligations do not adequately address real-time dissemination or proactive detection of harmful synthetic content.
SOFT TARGETS: STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY OF YOUNG WOMEN
Young women are particularly vulnerable due to a convergence of technological exposure and social factors.
Digital platforms encourage visibility and continuous sharing of personal content, which becomes raw material for AI manipulation. Grooming has evolved into a sophisticated psychological process, often aided by data analytics and behavioural targeting, exploiting emotional vulnerability, aspiration, and fear of social stigma.
Institutional gaps further exacerbate the problem. Reporting remains low due to reputational concerns, while investigative processes often struggle with technological complexity and evidentiary standards.
The data economy compounds these risks, as personal information collected by platforms is frequently insufficiently protected, creating a reservoir for misuse.
EMERGING PATTERNS: FROM INDIVIDUAL CRIME TO DIGITAL ECOSYSTEMS
Recent trends indicate that these crimes are no longer isolated acts but part of organised digital ecosystems.
Synthetic identities are used to establish trust before initiating exploitation.
Real-time deepfake technologies enable manipulation during live interactions, increasing coercive pressure. Automated sextortion networks operate at scale, targeting multiple victims simultaneously.
Dark web marketplaces facilitate the exchange of both real and AI-generated exploitative material, creating a parallel economy of abuse. These developments demonstrate that exploitation is now scalable, borderless, and increasingly detached from physical identity.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE AND GLOBAL TREND
Comparative jurisdictions have begun to respond with greater clarity.
Several states in the United States have enacted laws specifically criminalising non-consensual deepfake pornography.
The United Kingdom and European Union are moving towards stronger platform accountability and AI regulation frameworks.
India, however, continues to rely on interpretative jurisprudence rather than explicit legislative intent, which risks under-enforcement and legal uncertainty.
WAY FORWARD: LEGAL AND POLICY REFORMS
A coherent response requires structural reform.
There is a pressing need for a dedicated legal framework addressing digital sexual exploitation, clearly defining deepfakes, synthetic media, and AI-enabled impersonation, and criminalising their malicious creation, possession, and dissemination.
The protective philosophy underlying child-centric laws must be extended in a calibrated manner to cover young adults who remain vulnerable to digital coercion and exploitation.
Non-consensual image-based abuse must be recognised as a standalone offence with clearly defined elements of consent, intent, and harm. Platform accountability must be strengthened by mandating the deployment of AI-based detection systems, watermarking technologies, and time-bound takedown mechanisms, while maintaining a careful balance with constitutional protections for free speech.
Investigative capacity must be enhanced through specialised cyber units trained in digital forensics and artificial intelligence. Strict adherence to evidentiary requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is essential to ensure admissibility of digital evidence.
Cross-border cooperation mechanisms must be streamlined to address jurisdictional challenges inherent in digital crimes. Victim protection must be central, with confidential reporting systems, psychological support, legal aid, and identity protection protocols forming an integral part of the response.
Governance of artificial intelligence must include enforceable standards such as mandatory watermarking of synthetic content, traceability mechanisms, and accountability for developers and platforms.
LAW MUST ANTICIPATE, NOT MERELY REACT
AI-driven exploitation presents not merely a legal challenge but a test of the ability of law to safeguard dignity, autonomy, and identity in a rapidly transforming digital environment.
The law in its current form remains largely reactive, while technology operates with predictive precision. The future of legal protection lies in anticipating harm rather than merely responding to it.
The principles that informed the enactment of POCSO cannot remain confined within rigid age boundaries in a borderless digital world.
The legitimacy of the legal system will ultimately be measured by its capacity to evolve and protect those who are most exposed to harm in spaces that are increasingly invisible yet profoundly real.
Advocate Aishwarya Srivastava’s previous article published in https://suntoday.in/
Law & Justice In First 25 Years Of Century: From Authority To Accountability
(Aishwarya Srivastava is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, and various tribunals. She specializes in corporate law, cyber law, data protection, and digital rights. A graduate of National Law Institute University, Bhopal, she has professional experience with leading law firms and has advised on complex legal and regulatory issues. She is actively engaged in policy discussions on child safety, online harms, and emerging technologies, and is co author of the forthcoming book Innocence at Risk: Protecting Children in the Age of Algorithms.)
