The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 1 July ordered the removal of five prima facie defamatory online posts targeting Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rajya Sabha member Raghav Chadha, who had petitioned the court to take down allegedly manipulated digital content claiming he 'sold himself for money' following his switch from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the BJP. The court, however, stopped well short of granting broader relief.

What the Court Ordered

A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the takedown of only the five posts identified as prima facie defamatory, declining to pass any blanket interim order covering the remaining flagged content. The court also refused to extend wider protection to Chadha's personality and publicity rights.

'There is no personality right involved. However, I have ordered a takedown of only five documents. Rest is not defamatory prima facie,' Justice Prasad said in his ruling.

What Chadha Had Sought

Chadha had approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights against the alleged unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness, and identity across digital platforms. His petition specifically targeted AI-generated, deepfake, and morphed content, as well as synthetic voice cloning, fabricated speeches, and manipulated videos that reportedly circulated after his party switch.

Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Chadha, argued that certain posts crossed the line from political criticism into defamation — particularly those depicting the Prime Minister showering Chadha with cash and other morphed visuals. Nayar contended the material was 'profane and damaging' to the MP's reputation.

The Court's Earlier Observations

While reserving its order on the interim application in May, Justice Prasad had orally noted that the content flagged by Chadha appeared, prima facie, to constitute criticism of a political decision rather than a violation of personality rights. 'Prima facie, there is no personality right involved in this case. A decision taken by you in a political arena is being criticised,' the court had remarked at the time.

The bench had also flagged that the line between criticism and defamation was 'quite thin,' and indicated the matter may not justify an interim injunction grounded in personality rights. Notably, Justice Prasad had suggested that if Chadha wished to pursue defamation claims, he may need to seek an amendment to his original plaint — since the suit, as filed, rested on personality rights, not defamation.

Broader Implications

The ruling underscores the legal complexity of regulating AI-generated and deepfake political content in India, where courts have so far drawn a careful distinction between protected political satire and actionable defamation. This comes amid growing concerns about the use of synthetic media to target public figures during and after election cycles. The case is likely to proceed further, with Chadha's legal team potentially seeking to amend the plaint to include formal defamation claims.