Delivering the order, Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, "There are no personality rights involved. However, I have ordered the takedown of only five documents. The rest are not defamatory prima facie." The court held that only five specific documents warranted removal, while the remaining content did not meet the threshold of prima facie defamation.
Chadha had approached the Delhi High Court alleging that his image and persona were being misused across social media platforms. He contended that the content falsely portrayed him as having "sold himself for money" and sought protection under the legal framework governing personality rights.
The High Court, however, rejected this argument and ruled that the dispute did not involve personality rights. Instead, it confined the relief to the removal of five documents that it found to be prima facie defamatory.
The order follows the court's earlier proceedings on May 27, when Justice Prasad had declined to grant interim relief to Chadha. During that hearing, the judge had orally observed that criticism, satire, and cartoons targeting political figures cannot be restrained merely because they are unpalatable.
The court had also noted that there was no prima facie case of violation of personality rights, observing that the social media posts related to criticism of decisions taken in the political arena rather than the unlawful commercial exploitation of an individual's identity.
In his petition, Chadha sought an injunction against artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes, manipulated videos, synthetic voice cloning, morphed visuals, fabricated speeches, and other deceptive digital content allegedly circulated on social media platforms.
He specifically objected to several social media posts depicting him wearing a saree and showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi showering money on him. According to Chadha, such content was defamatory and falsely suggested that he had accepted money in exchange for changing his political allegiance.
The social media backlash followed after Chadha, who had been nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the Aam Aadmi Party, defected to the Bharatiya Janata Party in April this year.
Appearing before the court, Chadha's counsel argued that the flagged content was profane, defamatory, and amounted to an allegation that he had sold himself for money. However, the High Court held that a personality rights petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such grievances. The court observed that, at best, Chadha could pursue a defamation suit, and only in relation to the limited instances that were found to be prima facie defamatory.
The ruling draws a clear distinction between personality rights and defamation in the context of political criticism on social media. While the Delhi High Court ordered the removal of five allegedly defamatory documents, it reaffirmed that criticism, satire, and political commentary remain protected unless they cross the legal threshold of defamation.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted partial relief to BJP MP Raghav Chadha by directing the removal of five documents from social media platforms after finding them to be prima facie defamatory. However, the court ruled that the matter did not involve any violation of his personality rights, limiting the scope of relief sought by the Member of Parliament.
Delivering the order, Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, "There are no personality rights involved. However, I have ordered the takedown of only five documents. The rest are not defamatory prima facie." The court held that only five specific documents warranted removal, while the remaining content did not meet the threshold of prima facie defamation.
Chadha had approached the Delhi High Court alleging that his image and persona were being misused across social media platforms. He contended that the content falsely portrayed him as having "sold himself for money" and sought protection under the legal framework governing personality rights.
The High Court, however, rejected this argument and ruled that the dispute did not involve personality rights. Instead, it confined the relief to the removal of five documents that it found to be prima facie defamatory.
The order follows the court's earlier proceedings on May 27, when Justice Prasad had declined to grant interim relief to Chadha. During that hearing, the judge had orally observed that criticism, satire, and cartoons targeting political figures cannot be restrained merely because they are unpalatable.
The court had also noted that there was no prima facie case of violation of personality rights, observing that the social media posts related to criticism of decisions taken in the political arena rather than the unlawful commercial exploitation of an individual's identity.
In his petition, Chadha sought an injunction against artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes, manipulated videos, synthetic voice cloning, morphed visuals, fabricated speeches, and other deceptive digital content allegedly circulated on social media platforms.
He specifically objected to several social media posts depicting him wearing a saree and showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi showering money on him. According to Chadha, such content was defamatory and falsely suggested that he had accepted money in exchange for changing his political allegiance.
The social media backlash followed after Chadha, who had been nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the Aam Aadmi Party, defected to the Bharatiya Janata Party in April this year.
Appearing before the court, Chadha's counsel argued that the flagged content was profane, defamatory, and amounted to an allegation that he had sold himself for money. However, the High Court held that a personality rights petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such grievances. The court observed that, at best, Chadha could pursue a defamation suit, and only in relation to the limited instances that were found to be prima facie defamatory.
The ruling draws a clear distinction between personality rights and defamation in the context of political criticism on social media. While the Delhi High Court ordered the removal of five allegedly defamatory documents, it reaffirmed that criticism, satire, and political commentary remain protected unless they cross the legal threshold of defamation.
About The Author
Comment List