The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 1 July directed multiple online platforms to remove social media posts targeting Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha, ruling that content which is 'profane and vulgar' falls outside the protection of political satire. The interim order, passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, marks a significant judicial intervention in the growing debate over the limits of online speech targeting public figures.

What the Court Ordered

Justice Prasad directed Defendants No. 2 and 4 — the intermediary platforms — to take down specific URLs associated with the flagged posts within two weeks. The platforms were also asked to furnish Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) and IP logs of the accounts linked to those posts to Chadha within the same timeframe.

The court identified Documents No. 2, 8, 9, 11, 25 and 40 as containing explicit content that crossed the line. 'Documents No. 2, 8, 9, 11, 25 and 40 contain explicit content, which is profane and vulgar in nature, and fall outside the purview of harmless satirical humour,' the Bench held.

What the Court Refused to Remove

The Bench declined to order the removal of the remaining content from the 52 documents placed before it. The court observed that the majority of the challenged material amounted to political criticism of Chadha's decision to switch allegiance from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the BJP — and that such criticism is constitutionally protected.

'The majority of the allegedly defamatory content appears to be satirical expressions of the Plaintiff's decisions in the political sphere, and such decisions are likely to attract both bouquets and brickbats at the same time,' the court noted. It further held that 'humour about change in political party alliances, governance, policies, etc. are a part and parcel of politics' and that public figures 'must accept being at the receiving end of the satirical humour as a necessary and inevitable aspect of their profession.'

The AI Deepfake Warning

Separately, the court issued a pointed caution on the use of artificial intelligence to generate harmful content. '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,' Justice Prasad stated, adding that courts must strike 'a fair balance' between an individual's right to dignity and the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

Chadha had originally petitioned the court seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights against the alleged unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness, and identity — including through AI-generated, deepfake, and morphed content. His plea specifically sought the removal of synthetic voice cloning, fabricated speeches, and manipulated digital content allegedly portraying that he had 'sold himself for money' after switching parties. The court declined to grant wider interim protection under personality rights, choosing instead to examine the material through the narrower lens of defamation law.

Organised Defamation Campaign Alleged

Chadha's counsel — advocates Satatya Anand and Nikhil Aradhe — told the court that a coordinated and allegedly paid social media campaign had been run through multiple professional agencies to damage the MP's public image. According to the lawyers, material placed before the court demonstrated that 'defamatory posts, by several social media accounts and influencers publishing paid content, engaged by Influencer Marketing Agencies, were disseminated across numerous social media handles within minutes, reflecting a concerted and organised effort to amplify false narratives and cause irreparable reputational harm.'

Welcoming the order, the advocates said it 'reinforces the fact that freedom of speech cannot be used to run paid orchestrated campaigns of defamation and character assassination.' They described it as 'an important step towards ensuring quick action against organised online defamation and protecting the dignity of public discourse.'

What Happens Next

The platforms now have two weeks to comply with the takedown directive and submit subscriber data. The broader defamation suit filed by Chadha is expected to proceed, with the court set to examine the remaining contested content on its merits. The case is being closely watched as a test of how Indian courts balance free political speech against reputational harm in the age of AI-generated content.