Written by 
tl;dr
This election season was marked by widespread use of technology to create deceptive or misleading synthetic content like ‘cheapfakes’ and ‘deepfakes’. Action against political actors violating the Model Code of Conduct (“MCC”) and other legal instruments was delayed and inadequate. As we trace the Election Commission of India’s (“ECI”) response during this election period we notice that it faltered in upholding the sanctity and legitimacy of the Lok Sabha elections.
Important documents:
- ECI’s Notice to all national/state recognised political parties on the responsible and ethical use of social media platforms and strict avoidance of any wrongful use by political parties and their representatives. (link)
- IFF’s Letter to ECI voicing concerns around inadequate and incomprehensive action taken by them regarding MCC violations by political parties. (link)
- Civil Society Organisation’s Joint Open Letter to Electoral Candidates & Parliamentary Representatives on the Impact of Deepfakes on Electoral Outcomes dated 20.02.2024. (link)
- ECI’s second suo motu report on two months’ enforcement of MCC during General Elections 2024. (link)
- IFF’s thread on X (formerly Twitter) highlighting concerns with the ECI’s report on the enforcement of MCC. (link)
Why should you care?
Free and fair elections are an integral pillar of democracy. But this Lok Sabha election has seen several instances of circulation of disinformation and falsely contextualised content, including content with misleading communal narratives. Here, it becomes important to consider voters’ potential inability to distinguish between real and synthetic content and their vulnerability to deception. AI-powered disinformation campaigns can influence voter behaviour by spreading false narratives or amplifying divisive content. This fundamentally affects the ability of citizens to exercise their democratic right to cast a free and informed vote.
The letter we awaited and were disappointed by
On May 06, 2024, ECI sent a letter to all national/state recognised political parties, cautioning them against the “use of deep fakes, AI-generated distorted content which spread fake information/misinformation/disinformation and distortions of facts”. ECI directed political parties to follow the provisions of the MCC and other existing legislations. This response came after two of the seven phases for the Lok Sabha seats had ended and there had been widespread dissemination of AI-generated misleading content.
It also followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a Writ Petition filed by a lawyers’ organisation requesting action from ECI on the circulation of deepfakes. The Court chose to let ECI examine the matter and “decide this as expeditiously as possible on or before May 6, keeping in view the urgency of the matter involved, in accordance with law”.
In February 2024, we urged political representatives to publicly commit not to use manipulative technology to create deceptive or misleading synthetic content in the run-up to and during the 2024 general elections. Eleven civil society organisations including IFF had written an open letter to ECI and state Chief Electoral Officers, flagging concerns about generative AI technology (particularly deepfakes) used by political actors for influencing voter perception and impacting electoral outcomes.
ECI’s letter dated May 06 used terms such as “misinformation”, “patently false”, “untrue”, and “misleading” which is reflective of the vague and arbitrary language used in the amended Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Amendment Rules, 2023”). Reliance on such undefined terms allows for its misuse through subjective application and selective enforcement. Further, the recent instances of mislabelling doctored/ edited media (i.e. cheapfakes) as deepfakes, or even authentic media as deepfakes raises concerns about disproportionate censorship in the wake of the direction issued by the ECI in the notice. Here, the awareness and ability of political parties to identify/detect AI-generated media must be realistically assessed.
Various instances of use and dissemination of manipulated/misleading media of high-profile public figures expressing support for a political party were also reported. We wrote to the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) and Indian National Congress (“INC”) (here and here), highlighting their responsibility of not endorsing any deceptive or misleading synthetic content, even if it disproportionately favours them, as that may deliberately misinform citizens and affect their ability to exercise their democratic right to cast a free and informed vote. In our letter to ECI on May 13, 2024, we noted that they had failed to highlight this aspect and must consider directing the political parties and representatives to advocate against manipulated media, even ones that lead to a favourable outcome for them.
Additionally, despite several widely circulated pieces of content having misleading communal claims and allegations, both doctored/ manipulated and otherwise, the directions issued by ECI did not explicitly mention the party representative’s duty towards not spreading content that “aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic” [Paragraph 1(1) of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)]. In the notice, the ECI only lists “criticism of other political parties” [Paragraph 1(2)] from the MCC] which should be followed by the political parties given the “subject matter”.
We wrote to the ECI on May 13, 2024 citing the above stated and other similar concerns.
ECI’s report on the enforcement of MCC
On May 14, 2024, ECI reported on its two months of enforcement under MCC during Elections 2024 (“MCC enforcement report”). While we appreciated the intent of transparency, critical gaps were observed in their response. Firstly, ECI acknowledged its pending decision on divisive statements made by the candidates “on communal, caste, regional language divide, or on the sanctity of the Constitution of India.” An example of this was a post by BJP’s Karnataka unit on X (formerly Twitter) which triggered nationwide outrage due to its communal attack on the INC. ECI did not directly warn or take action against the BJP, and only directed the Karnataka Police to take down the controversial post after it had garnered 9.2 million views and 13,000 reshares.
Despite wide coverage of communal content being posted online by political actors during the election period for voter appeasement, ECI failed to take notice of speeches being spread on the lines of caste, community, or religion at the right time. This is in spite of at least one national party filing a complaint against the BJP to ECI for the aforementioned post and other content posted by the party that too violates the MCC, Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Two weeks after this incident on X and a week after the release of the MCC enforcement report, ECI finally issued a warning on May 22, 2024 to the BJP and INC, asking the two political parties to desist from campaigning along caste, community, language, and communal lines. It asked BJP President JP Nadda and INC Chief Mallikarjun Kharge to issue formal notes to their star campaigners asking them to “not make speeches and statements, which may divide the society”, “refrain from any campaigning methods/utterances along religious/communal lines”, and “ maintain decorum in their utterances”.
This deterrent action should have been taken as soon as such incidents were reported at the beginning of the elections, and not when five out of the seven phases of elections were done. ECI’s delayed, inadequate and selective action in addressing crucial issues like this puts a serious dent on the electoral integrity and accountability of ECI as an institution.
Additionally, the MCC enforcement report did not mention the terms ‘deepfakes’, ‘cheapfakes’, ‘false’, ‘misleading’, or ‘misinformation’ even once, and only once mentioned the term ‘morphed images’. This omission is surprising given the dominance of such manipulated/edited media in the general elections. Regarding ECI’s instruction to take down deepfake content within 3 hours, it was unclear whether the parties were expected to identify the content themselves or whether this responsibility falls on some other entity. Throughout the election process, the parties had a responsibility under the premise of good faith to inform the voters that a particular manipulated/misleading media is being circulated and that the party does not officially associate with it, even if it benefits them disproportionately. This accountability was completely absent from the side of the political parties and their members.
ECI’s sparing response to the use of deepfakes and other forms of edited/distorted content which spreads disinformation has been delayed, dispiriting, and limited in scope. This impacted electoral integrity and the level of political discourse in the country amid a crucial democratic moment.
The MCC enforcement report also highlighted the C-Vigil App’s robustness in reporting MCC violations during elections. However, shortly before the release of this report, citizens shared their experience of being unable to upload pre-recorded videos or link to social media content. For some users, the app did not work on either Android or iOS phones, preventing them from reporting violations occurring in the digital space.
The other mechanism through which voters tried to complain to ECI was over emails because the official channels did not work. But even this avenue failed. There was no way to ensure action or a follow-up when it came to email complaints. This highlights the ECI’s inadequate grievance redressal system and the lack of a transparent mechanism to hold accountability over poll code violations.
Free and Fair
Seven phases. Two months. 543 seats. Over 96 crore voters.
Indian voters participated in the largest-ever election in the world to elect Members of Parliament to the 18th Lok Sabha. Concurrently, elections have taken place for the Legislative Assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, and Sikkim and by-elections for 35 seats in 16 states.
The stakes for our democracy have been higher than ever and we have been keeping our eyes on the ways in which technology is shaping the electoral process. We were also tracking all the absurd developments in the digital rights space during these elections. Follow ‘Digital Rights Are Going Great – Elections Edition’ to stay updated on digital rights violations and visit our website freeandfair.in to read about how IFF responded to these violations.