New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted partial relief to BJP MP Raghav Chadha as it directed the removal of five documents from social media platforms that it found to be prima facie defamatory. The court, however, held that the case did not involve any violation of his personality rights.
Pronouncing the order, Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “There are no personality rights involved. However, I have ordered the takedown of only five documents. The rest are not defamatory prima facie.”
Chadha had approached the High Court alleging misuse of his ntent in question falsely portrayed him as having “sold himself for money” and sought protection under personality rights.
The court, however, held that the dispute did not involve personality rights and limited the relief to the removal of five specific documents that it found to be prima facie defamatory.
The order comes after the High Court, on May 27, had declined to grant interim relief to Chadha in the matter. During that hearing, Justice Prasad had orally observed that criticism, satire and cartoons targeting political figures cannot be restrained merely because they are be unpalatable.
The court had also noted that there was no prima facie case of violation of personality rights, observing that the social media posts in question related to criticism of decisions taken in the political arena.
Chadha moved the court seeking an injunction against AI- generated deepfakes, manipulated videos, synthetic voice cloning, morphed visuals, fabricated speeches, and deceptive digital content circulated across social media platforms.
He objected to several social media posts depicting him in a saree and Prime Minister Narendra Modi showering money on him.
The social media backlash followed after Chadha, who was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the Aam Aadmi Party, defected to the BJP in April this year.
Chadha’s lawyers argued that the content flagged was profane and defamatory, and amounted to an allegation that he sold himself for money.
However, the court said that a personality rights suit was not the correct legal route and at best he could file a defamation suit that too over limited instances.
