Court Directs Removal of Five Posts, Rejects Broader Injunction
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to grant a blanket interim injunction directing the removal of allegedly defamatory online content and protecting the personality rights of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha. However, the Court ordered the deletion of five specific posts identified by Chadha as defamatory.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the remaining content did not appear to be defamatory. “I have ordered the removal of five documents. The rest of the content is not defamatory,” the Court said.
Background of the Suit
The order came in a suit filed by Chadha seeking an injunction against AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated videos, synthetic voice cloning, morphed images, fabricated speeches, and other deceptive digital content allegedly circulated on social media following his switch from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the BJP this year.
Chadha argued that several posts—including morphed images showing him wearing a saree and another depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi showering money on him—were defamatory and falsely suggested that he had accepted money to join the BJP.
Court’s Prima Facie Observations
During the hearing on the interim injunction application on May 21, the Court made a prima facie observation that the disputed content did not involve a violation of personality rights but largely constituted political criticism. Justice Prasad noted that criticism of political decisions has long been part of democratic discourse, citing the political cartoons of RK Laxman as an example. The Court observed that while social media has amplified the reach of such criticism, it does not automatically amount to a violation of personality rights.
Distinction Between Defamation and Personality Rights
The Court also distinguished between a defamation claim and a suit seeking protection of personality rights, indicating that the issues raised by Chadha appeared to fall more within the domain of defamation. Questioning the extent to which political leaders should tolerate public criticism, Justice Prasad remarked that the impugned content appeared to be commentary on a political decision. “As a political leader, can you be so sensitive?” the judge observed during the hearing.
Next Steps and Legal Proceedings
The Court had also indicated that it may consider appointing an amicus curiae since the alleged creators of the online content were unidentified. However, Chadha’s counsel requested that the Court first decide the plea for interim relief. After hearing detailed submissions, the High Court directed the removal of five specific posts while refusing to issue a broader interim order against the remaining content.
