Guwahati: Political leaders cannot treat every satirical post or criticism on social media as defamation, the Delhi High Court observed while refusing to order the wholesale removal of online content flagged by Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha.
Delivering its judgment on Wednesday, Justice Subramonium Prasad said satire and humour arising from political decisions, party alignments, governance and public policies are part of democratic discourse.
The court observed that criticism expressed in such forms does not become defamatory merely because it is directed at a public figure.
The court also noted that those holding public office are expected to tolerate criticism and satire, describing it as an inevitable consequence of political life.
The observations came while deciding Chadha’s plea seeking the removal of online posts and protection of his personality rights.
While declining to grant a blanket takedown order, the High Court directed that content identified in six documents be removed after finding it to be obscene and beyond the limits of legitimate satire.
Chadha had moved the court alleging that unknown individuals used artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to create deepfake videos, morphed images and cloned audio clips that portrayed him negatively.
His petition sought the removal of social media content contained in 52 documents and protection of his personality rights.
He claimed the online campaign began after he and several other Aam Aadmi Party MPs allegedly switched to the Bharatiya Janata Party.
During the hearing, the court observed that the case was not primarily one involving personality rights. It also recorded that Chadha’s counsel chose not to pursue that aspect of the petition and instead limited the case to the allegedly defamatory content.
After reviewing the material submitted by Chadha, the court found that most of the posts related to his political decisions and public actions.
The judgment said elected representatives are naturally exposed to both praise and criticism for their political choices and should not regard every unfavourable comment as defamatory.
However, the court held that six of the posts contained vulgar and explicit material that could not be treated as protected political satire and therefore ordered their removal.
It also directed Defendants No. 2 and 4 to furnish Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) and IP logs of the accounts linked to the content contained in Documents 2, 8, 9, 11, 25 and 40 within two weeks.
The High Court further clarified that it does not support the misuse of AI to generate deepfakes or manipulated content that infringes upon a person’s dignity.
The judgment added that, in the absence of a comprehensive law governing AI-generated content, courts have a duty to examine whether such material violates an individual’s fundamental right to dignity while maintaining a balance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.