The Delhi High Court has observed that there exists a "thin line" between political criticism and defamation, while questioning whether a public figure like MP Raghav Chadha could be overly "sensitive" to social media posts that appear to criticize a political decision — specifically, his alleged switch from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Court Hearing on Interim Relief
Chadha had filed a suit seeking action against what he described as malicious and fabricated social media posts, claiming they were gravely prejudicial to his reputation and personality rights. During the hearing, Justice Subramonium Prasad asked, "It is a comment by an individual criticising a political decision... As a political leader, can you be sensitive?"
The judge further remarked, "Right from Independence, we have grown up seeing RK Laxman's cartoons... In various ways, criticism has been made on decisions taken politically, economically... Now social media has gone to a greater extent. But still, at the end of the day, it's still within the realm of a comment by a person."
Arguments by Senior Advocate
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Chadha, contended that there were posts with profane content, including where the politician is shown as having "sold himself away for money," and sought an interim order for their removal. However, the court declined to grant immediate relief. Reserving its verdict on the aspect of interim relief to take down such alleged offending content, the High Court acknowledged that while an individual has the right to live with dignity, the right to free speech under the Constitution cannot be taken away.
Fair Criticism vs. Defamation
Chadha's counsel maintained that posts implying he "traded for money" cannot be termed as "fair criticism," urging the court to intervene, and further argued that the offending posts "can't stay even for a day." Justice Prasad responded that prima facie they only appeared to be criticism. "According to me, prima facie, these are all only criticism of a political decision," he orally said.
The court added, "The line between defamation and criticism is quite thin, right? It's very easy to slip to the other side, which affects your right to live with dignity, and you cannot infringe on this side at the same time. Your Article 19 (1) (a) right also cannot be taken away."
Appointment of Amicus Curiae
Considering that the alleged offending posts were by unknown individuals, the court suggested appointing an amicus curiae to assist it, noting there was a difference between commercialising personality rights and political criticism against an individual. However, Nayar contended he was pressing his claim on the basis of defamation at this stage, not violation of personality rights. The court then reserved its verdict.
Chadha's Plea on AI and Deepfake Content
Chadha sought immediate removal and takedown of false, AI-generated, and deepfake content circulating widely across social media platforms. His plea contended that artificial intelligence and deepfake technology were being used in an unauthorised manner to create and disseminate manipulated content, which was a serious infringement of his legal and constitutional rights.
