The Delhi High Court has held that while the use of artificial intelligence to create deepfakes aimed at harming an individual’s dignity is unacceptable, politicians cannot seek to suppress satire or criticism merely because it is unpleasant. Refusing to grant a blanket injunction sought by Aam Aadmi Party-turned-BJP Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha, the Court observed that public figures must not be “too thin-skinned” and must accept satire and criticism as an inevitable consequence of public life.
“
“With regard to the other documents, this Court observes that humor about change in political party alliances, governance, policies, etc. are a part and parcel of politics. Any action by a politician belonging to any political party will, in most, if not all circumstances, invite criticism from, upset, or create turmoil amongst, the general public or members from rival political parties, which may at times be expressed in the form of satirical humor. However, that does not automatically make such content offensive or defamatory. At the cost of repetition, public figures assuming such positions of power must accept being at the receiving end of the satirical humor as a necessary and inevitable aspect of their profession, though unpleasant.”
Also Read – ‘Your Political Decision is Criticised’: Delhi High Court Registers Raghav Chadha’s Personality Rights Suit
Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing Raghav Chadha’s suit seeking removal of AI-generated deepfake videos, morphed images and voice-cloned content allegedly portraying him in a defamatory manner after his political switch from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He had sought wide-ranging reliefs, including restraint against the use of his personality rights, removal of all impugned content, disclosure of uploader details and future takedown directions.
At the outset, the Court clarified that the dispute did not concern personality rights. During the hearing, counsel for plaintiff chose not to press the prayers relating to personality rights and confined the case to allegations of defamation. Consequently, the Court limited its examination to whether the impugned content was defamatory.
Drawing extensively from Indian and foreign precedents on the scope of criticism against public figures, the Court noted that public figures may be better advised to ignore even vulgar criticism rather than lend it importance through litigation. While acknowledging the dangers posed by artificial intelligence, Justice Prasad observed:
“
“this Court in no way or manner endorses the use of AI to produce deepfake videos, morphed images, etc., when employed to harm the dignity of an individual which would strike at the very root of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In the same vein, this Court acknowledges the contemporary position that the use of AI has become an instrument for voicing opinions across social media platforms, which is fairly evident in the political context. In this context, this Court believes that at least till the time most of such content is not regulated by a stringent legislation, it becomes a judicial duty upon receipt of grievances such as those in the present Suit, to examine whether the use of AI has reached the threshold of infringing upon an individual’s fundamental right to dignity or not. Needless to state, a fair balance is to be struck with an individual’s freedom of speech and expression which is also granted under the Constitution of India.”
Examining the 52 pieces of content produced by Chadha, the Court held that the majority constituted political satire directed at his political decisions and change of party affiliation. It observed:
“
Majority of the allegedly defamatory content appears to be satirical expressions of the Plaintiff’s decisions in the political sphere… such decisions are likely attract both bouquets and brickbats at the same time.”
Emphasising the limits of judicial intervention in political speech, the Court held:
“
“Humour about change in political party alliances, governance, policies, etc. are a part and parcel of politics… Public figures assuming such positions of power must accept being at the receiving end of the satirical humor as a necessary and inevitable aspect of their profession, though unpleasant.”
However, the Court found that Documents Nos. 2, 8, 9, 11, 25 and 40 contained explicit, profane and vulgar content that crossed the line from satire into actionable material. Holding that such content fell outside the protection available to harmless political humour, the Court directed Meta and X to take down the corresponding URLs within two weeks and furnish the plaintiff with the Basic Subscriber Information and IP logs relating to those accounts.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 18 August 2026.
