Raghav Chadha vs Ashok Kumar John Doe And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 01 JULY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
I.A. 14417/2026
IN
+ CS(OS) 466/2026 & I.A. 14417/2026, I.A. 14418/2026, I.A.
14419/2026, I.A. 14420/2026, I.A. 14421/2026, I.A. 14422/2026
RAGHAV CHADHA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sataya Anand, Mr. Nikhil
Aradhe, Mr. Amber Chaturvedi, Ms.
Manjira Das Gupta and Mr. Naman
Maheshwari, Advocates
versus
ASHOK KUMAR JOHN DOE AND ORS .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Varun Pathak; Ms. Radhika Roy;
Ms. Prasidhi Agrawal, Advs for
Defendant No.2 - Meta Platforms,
Inc.
Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Rohan
Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Ms.
Sanya Sehgal and Ms. Aiswarya,
Advocates for D-4
Ms. Dimple S Arora (SPC) and Mr.
Vanshul Pali (GP) along with Ms.
Ayushika Mishra for Defendant No.
5-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 1 of 19
I.A. 14417/2026
1. The present Application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“ CPC ”] seeking the following
reliefs:
“(a) Pass an order of ex-parte ad-interim injunction
restraining Defendant No. 1 (Ashok Kumar / John
Doe), their associates, servants, agents, affiliates,
holding companies, assignees, substitutes,
representatives, group entities, their Help subscribers,
employees, and/or persons claiming through or under
them, from violating the Applicant-Plaintiff's
Personality Rights and Publicity Rights by utilizing,
reproducing, misappropriating, or imitating any facet
of the Applicant-Plaintiff's persona, including but not
limited to his (i) name, (ii) visual likeness and image,
(iii) distinct voice, (iv) signature oratorical cadence
and manner of speaking, and (v) highly refined
vocabulary, to create, publish, or disseminate any
synthetic media, deepfakes, voice-cloned audio, or
morphed videos, through the use of AI, Generative AI,
Machine Learning, or any other technology, for any
commercial, political, or malicious purpose, across
any physical or virtual medium;
(b) Pass an order directing Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4
(Intermediary Platforms) to forthwith take down,
remove, permanently disable, and block access to all
infringing content, including the deepfake videos,
morphed images, Al-generated audio-visual content,
bearing the Applicant's identity, presently available on
their respective platforms, as specifically detailed in
Schedule 1 of the Plaint, within a strict timeframe of 24
hours from the receipt of the order of this Hon'ble
Court;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 2 of 19
(c) Pass an order of injunction granting the Applicant
the liberty to directly intimate Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and
4 regarding any new, mirrored, or future URLs/links
hosting fresh deepfake content (as and when the
Applicant attains knowledge of it) and / or identical or
substantially similar infringing deepfake content,
which are circulated with an objective of disseminating
mis-information by misusing the Plaintiff's personality
rights, with a corresponding mandatory direction to the
said Defendants to take down and block access to such
URLs within 24 hours of receiving such written
intimation from the Applicant or his authorized
representatives;
(d) Pass an order directing Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4
to disclose on affidavit, within a timeframe stipulated
by this Hon'ble Court, the complete identity,
registration particulars, Basic Subscriber Information
(BSI), IP login details, phone numbers, and email
addresses of the uploaders, creators, and registrants of
the infringing accounts and URLs detailed in Schedule
1 of the Plaint, to effectively unmask the identity of
Defendant No. 1;
(e) Pass an order / direction to Defendant No. 2, 3 and
4 for blocking / taking down of various fake
profiles/accounts which are repeatedly posting
maliciously denigrating / defamatory Al generated
content(s) and deepfakes on the platforms of the
Defendants, upon the Applicant furnishing the relevant
details of such pseudo / fake accounts URLs or links
thereof, directly to Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 from time
to time, including fake profiles / accounts presently not
in the knowledge of the Applicant;
(f) Pass an order / direction to the Defendants No. 2, 3
and 4 to act upon information, links / URLs, fake
account / profile details as furnished by the Applicant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 3 of 19
or his authorized representatives, expeditiously and
without requiring fresh orders of this Hon'ble Court;
(g) Pass an order directing Defendant No. 5 (Ministry
of Electronics and Information Technology) and
Defendant No. 6 (Department of Telecommunications)
to issue necessary notifications, advisories, and
blocking orders to all Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) to forthwith
block and disable access to any independent rogue /
independent websites or URLs hosting the
unauthorized deepfakes and synthetic media pertaining
to the Applicant, upon being notified by the Applicant;
and
(h) Pass any such other and further orders in favor of
the Applicant as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”
2. The following factual background emerges from a collective reading
of the Plaint as well as the Application under adjudication:
i. Plaintiff is a nationally recognized political leader, presently
serving as a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha
representing the State of Punjab. He is amongst the youngest
members of the Rajya Sabha, having emerged as a prominent
public figure in the Indian politics. From 2020 till 2022, the
Plaintiff previously served as a Member of the Delhi Legislative
Assembly from Rajinder Nagar. He further served as the Vice-
Chairman of the Delhi Jal Board, where he was associated with
policy initiatives relating to water management and public
infrastructure.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 4 of 19
ii. The Plaintiff has over the years cultivated immense goodwill,
credibility and public trust, especially amongst young voters. He
has also managed to build substantial public digital identity and
reputation across various social media platforms (such as X,
Instagram, Facebook and YouTube) enabling members of the
electorate to closely follow contemporary political discourse, and
he is well-recognized for his articulate public speaking,
governance, and policy-related advocacy and active participation
in parliamentary and public affairs.
iii. In and around April 2026, the Plaintiff discovered various
derogatory, demeaning and malicious campaigns orchestrated by
unknown infringers (Defendant No. 1), who have allegedly used
Artificial Intelligence [“ AI ”] and machine learning to generate
hyper-realistic audio-visual deep-fake content wherein the
Plaintiff’s face and mannerisms are being duplicated to portray
him in a negative light. As per the Plaintiff, these campaigns
specifically commenced after the Plaintiff, along with several
other members of the Parliament from the Aam Aadmi Party,
[“ AAP ”] defected to the Bharatiya Janta Party [“ BJP ”].
3. Plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present Suit seeking,
inter alia, (a) permanent injunction restraining the unauthorized
misappropriation and exploitation of the Plaintiff's personality rights and
publicity rights; (b) restraint against impersonation, voice cloning, AI
generated maliciously denigrating/defamatory content, deepfake generation,
synthetic manipulation, and publication of fabricated audio-visual content
concerning the Plaintiff; (c) immediate/forthwith take-down and disabling
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 5 of 19
access to all infringing content hosted on various digital and intermediary
platforms; and (d) damages and other ancillary reliefs for the grave
reputational, political, and personal harm caused to the Plaintiff.
4. At the outset, having perused the contents of the Plaint as well as the
accompanying Application under adjudication, this Court is of the prima
facie observation that the Plaint does not pertain to protection of personality
rights of the Plaintiff in any manner. It is well settled that personality rights
of individuals entail the right to control and protect the exploitation of one’s
image, name, likeness or other attributes of the individual’s personality, in
addition to the commercial gains that can be derived from the same. These
personality rights can be located in the individual’s autonomy to permit or
deny the exploitation of the likeness of other attributes of their personality.
When the identity of a famous personality is used without their consent or
authorization, it may lead to commercial detriment to the concerned
individual. Courts, in such cases of unauthorized exploitation of one’s
personality rights, cannot turn a blind eye and must protect the aggrieved
party so as to avert any harm to them resulting from the said unauthorized
exploitation.
5. Accordingly, in order to establish a case of infringement of
personality rights, the Plaintiff must necessarily establish before a court that
the misuse of their name, image, likeness and other elements of the
Plaintiff’s persona clearly constitutes infringement, as the adoption of the
aforementioned attributes such as name, image, signature, likeness, etc.,
without any authorization from the plaintiff, will inevitably cause confusion
and create a perception of endorsement by the Plaintiff. As a necessary
corollary, an interim injunction in such a case may only be obtained when it
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 6 of 19
is proved that irreparable loss, damage and injury would be caused to the
Plaintiff’s goodwill, reputation and prestige, if the interim injunction as
prayed for is not granted immediately.
6. In all fairness, when this Court put the question to the learned Senior
Counsel for the Plaintiff as to whether the Plaintiff would be pressing for
protection of personality rights or not, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Plaintiff submitted that he would not be pressing arguments pertaining to the
Plaintiff’s personality rights, and would instead confine reliefs sought on the
issue of defamation against the Plaintiff. In view of this, this Court deems it
fit to disregard prayers (a), (b), (c) and (g) as mentioned in the instant
Application, as they relate to the issue of personality rights of the Plaintiff,
and determination of reliefs shall be confined to the issue of defamation.
7. As noted in the Order dated 21.05.2026, arguments in the instant
Application were only confined to Documents No. 1 to 52 annexed to the
Plaint. Accordingly, the present Order shall be confined to only those
documents, to assess whether a prima facie case of defamation against the
Plaintiff is made out herein or not.
8. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or
refrain from doing a particular act. Injunction is a nature of preventive relief
to a litigant to prevent future and possible injury. Grant of injunction is a
discretionary relief. It is well settled that before granting any temporary
injunction, three essential ingredients are to be made out, i.e., (i) prima face
case, (ii) balance of convenience and, (iii) irreparable injury which cannot be
compensated in terms of money. It is well settled that if a party fails to make
out any of the three ingredients, they are not entitled to a temporary
injunction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 7 of 19
9. This Court reminds itself of the landmark English case law in
Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269 , wherein the House of Lords shed
light on the public interest implicit in free speech and observed that unless
the alleged libel is proven untrue, no wrong is committed. Thus, until the
falsity of the alleged libel is established, no right is deemed to have been
infringed. It was held that a mere assertion of an intention to justify the
allegations in order to successfully resist an interlocutory injunction to
restrain the publication of a libel was sufficient to caution the Court in not
granting injunctions. The aforesaid has come to be known as the Bonnard
principle.
10. The Bonnard principle was applied by the Apex Court in the case
Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited &Ors. v.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426 ,
wherein it was observed as under:
“ 9. In essence, the grant of a pre-trial injunction
against the publication of an article may have severe
ramifications on the right to freedom of speech of the
author and the public's right to know. An injunction,
particularly ex-parte, should not be granted without
establishing that the content sought to be restricted is
“malicious‟ or “palpably false‟. Granting interim
injunctions, before the trial commences, in a cavalier
manner results in the stifling of public debate. In
other words, courts should not grant ex-parte
injunctions except in exceptional cases where the
defence advanced by the Plaintiff would undoubtedly
fail at trial. In all other cases, injunctions against the
publication of material should be granted only after a
full-fledged trial is conducted or in exceptional cases,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 8 of 19
after the Plaintiff is given a chance to make their
submissions… ”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Since the instant case is dealing with a public figure, a worthy
reference is also made to certain notable international case laws, which have
been frequently cited by the Apex Court as well as several High Courts as
useful reminders of the contours when dealing with such cases. The first
reference is made to the following observations of Cockburn, C.J. in
Seymour v. Butterworth, (1862) 3 F. & F. 372 :
“ Those who fill a public position must not be too thin
skinned in reference to comments made upon them. It
would often happen that observations would be made
upon public 'men which they know from the bottom of
their hearts were undeserved and unjust; yet they must
bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a
time. ”
12. Similarly, this Court also recalls the following observation of
Bramwell, B., in Kelly v. Sherlock, (1866) LR 1 QB 686, 689 :
“ Whoever fills a public position renders himself open
thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary,
though unpleasant, appendage to his office .”
13. The above two judicial opinions were affirmatively considered by the
Apex Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1956) 1 SCC 692 , while
holding as under:
“ 13. These slogans were certainly defamatory of the
Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the
Punjab Government but the redress of that grievance
was personal to these individuals and the State
authorities could not take the cudgels on their behalf
by having recourse to Section 9 of the Act unless and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 9 of 19
until the defamation of these individuals was
prejudicial to the security of the State or the
maintenance of public order. So far as these individuals
were concerned, they did not take any notice of these
vulgar abuses and appeared to have considered the
whole thing as beneath their notice. Their conduct in
this behalf was consistent with the best traditions of
democracy. “Those who fill a public position must not
be too thin-skinned in reference to comments made
upon them. It would often happen that observations
would be made upon public men which they know
from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and
unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be
misunderstood for a time” (per Cockburn, C.J. in
Seymour v. Butterworth [Seymour v. Butterworth,
(1862) 3 F & F 372, 376, 377 : 176 ER 166, 168, 169]
and see the dicta of the Judges in R. v. Sir Robert
Carden [R. v. Sir Robert Carden, (1879) LR 5 QBD 1
(DC)] ). “Whoever fills a public position renders
himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a
necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his
office” (per Bramwell, B., in Kelly v. Sherlock [Kelly
v. Sherlock, (1866) LR 1 QB 686, 689] ). Public men
in such positions may as well think it worth their
while to ignore such vulgar criticisms and abuses
hurled against them rather than give an importance
to the same by prosecuting the persons responsible for
the same. ”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Further, in the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC
632 , a reference by the Apex Court was made to the speech of Lord Bridge
of Harwich in the case of Leonard Hector v. Attorney-General of Antigua
and Barbuda, [1990] 2 A.C. 312 , who observed that those who hold office in
government and are responsible for public administration, must always be
open to criticism. The Apex Court in R. Rajagopal ( supra ), while referring
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 10 of 19
to the abovementioned judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, observed that an attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to
political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind. At the
same time, the Apex Court also opined that it is no less obvious that the very
purpose of criticism levelled at those who have the conduct of public affairs
by their political opponents is to undermine public confidence in their
stewardship and to persuade the electorate that the opponents would do a
better job at it than those presently holding office. Therefore, statements
made which are likely to undermine public confidence in the conduct of
public affairs cannot but be viewed with utmost suspicion. The Apex Court
in R. Rajagopal ( supra ) has observed as under:
“20. Reference in this connection may also be made to
the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in Leonard Hector v. Attorney General of
Antigua and Barbuda [(1990) 2 AC 312 : (1990) 2 All
ER 103 : (1990) 2 WLR 606, PC] which arose under
Section 33-B of the Public Order Act, 1972 (Antigua
and Barbuda). It provided that any person who printed
or distributed any false statement which was “likely to
cause fear or alarm in or to the public or to disturb the
public peace or to undermine public confidence in the
conduct of public affairs” shall be guilty of an offence.
The appellant, the editor of a newspaper, was
prosecuted under the said provision. He took the plea
that the said provision contravened Section 12(1) of the
Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda which provided
that no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of
freedom of expression. At the same time, sub-section
(4) of Section 12 stated that nothing contained in or
done under the authority of law was to be held
inconsistent with or in contravention of sub-section
12(1) to the extent that the law in question made
provisions reasonably required in the interest of public
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 11 of 19
order. [These provisions roughly correspond to Articles
19(1)(a) and 19(2) respectively.] The Privy Council
upheld the appellant's plea and declared Section 12(1)
ultra vires the Constitution. It held that Section 33-B is
wide enough to cover not only false statements which
are likely to affect public order but also those false
statements which are not likely to affect public order.
On that account, it was declared to be unconstitutional.
The criminal proceedings against the appellant was
accordingly quashed. In the course of his speech, Lord
Bridge of Harwich observed thus:
“In a free democratic society it is almost too
obvious to need stating that those who hold office
in Government and who are responsible for public
administration must always be open to criticism.
Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism
amounts to political censorship of the most
insidious and objectionable kind. At the same time
it is no less obvious that the very purpose of
criticism levelled at those who have the conduct of
public affairs by their political opponents is to
undermine public confidence in their stewardship
and to persuade the electorate that the opponents
would make a better job of it than those presently
holding office. In the light of these considerations
their Lordships cannot help viewing a statutory
provision which criminalises statements likely to
undermine public confidence in the conduct of
public affairs with the utmost suspicion.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. The Apex Court in Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others,
(2021) 1 SCC 1 while referring to Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India,
(2016) 7 SCC 221 has made the following observations:-
“61. In Subramanian Swamy [Subramanian Swamy v.
Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 12 of 19
1] , this Court referred to Charu Khurana v. Union of
India [Charu Khurana v. Union of India, (2015) 1 SCC
192 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 161] wherein it has been
ruled that dignity is the quintessential quality of
personality and a basic constituent along with honour
and reputation of the rights guaranteed and protected
under Article 21. Dignity is a part of the individual
rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective
harmony and interest of a society. While right to
speech and expression is absolutely sacrosanct in the
sense that it is essential for individual growth and
progress of democracy which recognises voice of
dissent, tolerance for discordant notes and acceptance
of different voices, albeit the right to equality under
Article 14 and right to dignity as a part of Article 21
have their own significance.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court in S. Charanjit Singh v. Aroon Purie, 1982 SCC OnLine
Del 301 while relying on Kartar Singh ( supra ) has reiterated the above
settled position as under:-
“16. The plaintiff admittedly is a Member of
Parliament. He is a public man. In Gatley on Libel and
Slander, 8th edition para 884 page 387 it is observed:
“Those who fill public positions must not be too
thin-skinned in reference to comments made upon
them”.
“One who undertakes to fill a public office offers
himself to public attack and criticism; and it is now
admitted and recognised that the public interest
requires that a man's public conduct shall be open to
the most searching criticism”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 13 of 19
Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court
in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 5411;
reading as under:
“Those who fill a public position must not be too
think skinned in reference to comments made upon
them. It would often happen that observations
would be made upon public men which they know
from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved
and unjust; yet they must bear with them and
submit to be misunderstood for a time” (Per
Cockburn, C.J. in „Seymour v. Butterworth‟ (1862) 3
F & F 372 (376, 377) (A) and see the dicta of the
Judges in „R. v. R. Carden‟, (1879) 5 QBD 1(B).
“Whoever fills a public position renders himself
open thereto. He must accept an attack as a
necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his
office” (Per Bramwell, B, in „Kelley v. Sherlock‟,
(1866) 1 Q.B. 686 (689) (Q). Public men in such
positions may as well think it worth their while to
ignore such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled
against them rather than give an importance to the
same by prosecuting the persons responsible for the
same”.
In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court
and in Gatley on Libel and Slander it can be said that
the observations made by the defendants regarding the
plaintiff are not unusual.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Conclusively this Court in Naveen Jindal v. Zee Media Corporation
Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1369 placing reliance on S. Charanjit Singh
( supra ) has made the following observations:-
“18. Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, the learned senior
counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 2 to 4 has also
placed very strong reliance on the judgment of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 14 of 19
court in S. Charanjit Singh v. Shri Arun Purie; 1983
Rajdhani Law Reporter 48 wherein the learned single
judge has observed that the plaintiff in the said case
was a member of Parliament and he being a public
servant, therefore, he could not complain about the
allegations which may be allegedly defamatory in his
view to be made by the respondent in the said case but
was or which may be causing annoyance to him. The
learned single judge while holding such a view has
relied upon one English judgment and has observed as
under: -
“17. The plaintiff admittedly is a Member of
Parliament. He is a public man. In Catley on Liblel
and Slander, 8th Ed., para 88 it is observed:
“Those who fill public positions must not be too
thin-skinned in reference to comments made upon
them. One who undertakes to fill a public office
offers himself to public attack and criticism; and it is
now admitted and recognized that the public interest
requires that a man's public conduct shall be open to
the most searching criticism”.
18. Similar observations were made by the Supreme
Court in Kartar Singh v. The State, AIR 1956 SC 541
reading as under:
“Those who fill a public position must not be too
thin skinned in reference to comments made upon
them. It would often happen that observations would
be made upon public men which they knowfrom the
bottom of their hearts were undeserved and unjust;
yet they must bear with them and submit to the
misunderstood for a time”. (Per Cockburn, O.J. in
„Seymour v. Butterworth‟ (1862) 3 F&F 372 (376,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 15 of 19
377)(A) and see dicta of the Judge's in „R.V. Sir R.
Cardan‟, (1879) 5 Q BD 1 (E). “Whoever fills a
public position renders himself open thereto. He
must accept an attack as a necessary, though
unpleasant, appendage to his office (Per Bramwell,
D., in „Kelley v. Sherlock‟, (1866) I Z.B. 686 (689)
(C). Public men in such position may as well think it
worth their while to ignore such vulgar criticisms
and abuses hurled against them rather than give an
importance to the same by prosecuting the persons
responsible for the same”.
19. I am also of the considered opinion that the view
which has been taken by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Sultan Singh in S. Charanjit Singh's case (supra)
which is based on the view of the Apex Court in
Kartar Singh's case (supra), is a more balanced view
on account of the fact that a public person or a
person holding a public office should not be so „thin
skinned‟ or should be rather „thick skinned‟ so as to
complain about the allegations or the averments or
the write ups which are taking place against him in
the media or are being telecast unless and until they
are grossly defamatory per se. The publications may
be inaccurate, not fully or substantially true or may
be distorted or may be offending sensibilities of the
person against whom such allegations are made or
may be to his annoyance but that is not to be the
ground to muzzle them altogether.
20. It is more so in a case when a person, holder of a
public office or aspiring to become a member of an
elected body is amidst the din of electioneering. It is a
common knowledge that while the elections are on, all
kinds of accusations and counter-accusations are
bound to fly thick and fast in all directions of which a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 16 of 19
person must not complain unless and until the
allegations against him are per se defamatory.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. Having noted that the standard of defamation that a public figure must
establish is comparatively higher, this Court is constrained to render a prima
facie observation that while some of the contents depicted in Documents No.
1 to 52 annexed to the Plaint, do reek of malice, having a nature which
maligns the reputation of the Plaintiff herein, however, the same cannot be
stated for all the fifty-two (52) documents.
19. Before delving into the contents of the fifty-two (52) documents, this
Court deems it fit declare that 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 which would strike at the very root of
their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In the
same vein, this Court acknowledges the contemporary position that the use
of AI has become an instrument for voicing opinions across social media
platforms, which is fairly evident in the political context. In this context, this
Court believes that at least till the time most of such content is not regulated
by a stringent legislation, it becomes a judicial duty upon receipt of
grievances such as those in the present Suit, to examine whether the use of
AI has reached the threshold of infringing upon an individual’s fundamental
right to dignity or not. Needless to state, a fair balance is to be struck with an
individual’s freedom of speech and expression which is also granted under
the Constitution of India.
20. Accordingly, this Court has perused the fifty-two (52) documents
which are subject matter of this Application and relate primarily to political
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 17 of 19
decisions taken by the Plaintiff. 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 attract both bouquets and
brickbats at the same time. As observed in a catena of judgments, a public
figure should not be so thin-skinned so as to complain about any criticism of
his decisions and such criticism ought to be viewed with humility.
21. However, keeping the above in mind, this Court is of the opinion that
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 humor. Consequently, the balance of convenience lies in restraining
Defendant No. 1 from publishing the same content as mentioned in
Documents No. 2, 8, 9, 11, 25 and 40, on any other social media platform, as
well as directing Defendants No. 2 and 4 to take down the URLs associated
with these specific documents.
22. With regard to the other documents, this Court observes that humor
about change in political party alliances, governance, policies, etc. are a part
and parcel of politics. Any action by a politician belonging to any political
party will, in most, if not all circumstances, invite criticism from, upset, or
create turmoil amongst, the general public or members from rival political
parties, which may at times be expressed in the form of satirical humor.
However, that does not automatically make such content offensive or
defamatory. At the cost of repetition, public figures assuming such positions
of power must accept being at the receiving end of the satirical humor as a
necessary and inevitable aspect of their profession, though unpleasant.
23. With the above observations, this Court passes the following
directions:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 18 of 19
i. The Defendants No. 2 and 4 are directed to take down the URLs
associated with Documents No. 2, 8, 9, 11, 25 and 40 within a
period of two weeks from the date of this Order till further Orders.
ii. The Defendants No. 2 and 4 are directed to provide the Plaintiff
with Basic Subscriber Information (BSI), IP logs of the accounts
associated with the content mentioned in Documents No. 2, 8, 9,
11, 25 and 40 within a period of two weeks from the date of this
Order.
iii. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be made within a
week from today.
19. List before the Court on 18.08.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 01, 2026
Prateek /AP
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
12:57:32
CS(OS) 466/2026 Page 19 of 19