Delhi HC orders removal of select posts targeting Raghav Chadha, declines blanket takedown

The Delhi High Court on July 1 granted partial relief to Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha in his plea seeking the removal of allegedly defamatory and AI-generated social media content, directing online platforms to take down five specific posts while declining to order a blanket removal of all content.

Justice Subramonium Prasad held that only a limited number of posts appeared to cross the threshold of prima facie defamation, while the remaining content largely fell within the scope of political criticism and free speech. The court observed that criticism of a politician's public decisions cannot automatically be treated as defamatory.

During earlier hearings, the court had remarked that there is a "thin line" between criticism and defamation and questioned whether politicians could be "so sensitive" to criticism expressed on social media. Referring to India's long tradition of political satire and cartoons, the court noted that public figures are subject to greater scrutiny and criticism than private individuals.

Chadha had approached the High Court seeking directions against unidentified persons and social media intermediaries over allegedly fabricated, AI-generated and manipulated content that he claimed falsely portrayed him as having switched political allegiance for monetary gain. His counsel argued that the posts damaged his reputation and dignity and sought their immediate removal.

The court clarified that the case was being considered from the standpoint of defamation and not personality rights. It observed that while individuals enjoy the right to reputation, this must be balanced against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Accordingly, the High Court directed the removal of five posts that it found to be prima facie defamatory but declined to grant a sweeping injunction covering all content identified by Chadha. It held that the remaining posts did not, at this stage, warrant takedown.

The ruling adds to the growing body of judicial decisions dealing with AI-generated content, online defamation and the balance between protecting an individual's reputation and safeguarding political speech on digital platforms.