The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of six social media URLs carrying AI-generated videos and posts allegedly depicting Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta as a liquor vendor, hawker and delivery agent, including as the head of a fictitious “Har Har Rekha or Ghar Ghar Theka” scheme. The Court observed that while political satire and criticism are protected in a democracy, such expression cannot be used to attack an individual’s dignity through offensive AI-generated portrayals.
Justice Manoj Jain passed the interim order on November 6, 2026, in a defamation suit instituted by Rekha Gupta against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and others, seeking a permanent injunction against the publication and circulation of allegedly defamatory AI-generated content, along with damages.
The plaintiff contended that the impugned material, published through AAP’s official and verified social media accounts, portrayed her in a demeaning manner. One of the videos allegedly depicted her serving liquor to men, while another featured a deepfake portrayal involving both the Chief Minister and Delhi Deputy Chief Minister. The plaintiff argued that the content was defamatory and had the potential to cause irreparable harm to her dignity and reputation.
The Court acknowledged that public office invites greater scrutiny and that politicians must have the ability to tolerate humour and satirical criticism. However, it emphasised that there is a thin line between political satire and offensive depiction.
“
“Satire may though hurt conscience of any individual but it cannot be permitted to create irreparable wound on someone’s dignity,”
the Court observed, adding that freedom of speech and expression cannot be used as a disguise to reduce an individual to an object of ridicule and insult.
The Court further observed that political parties are entitled to criticise government policies, decisions and administrative actions, but the offensive portrayal of a Chief Minister through AI-generated videos, in a manner that hurts her dignity, cannot be treated as permissible political satire.
Noting that the impugned content had crossed the line between healthy criticism and satirical humour, the Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was also in her favour, particularly given the speed at which such content spreads on social media platforms.
Accordingly, while issuing summons to the defendants, the Court directed defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to forthwith take down the six URLs identified in the plaint. The matter has been listed for further consideration on December 4, 2026.
The Court also directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
