Breaches Line Of Political Satire: Delhi HC Orders Takedown Of AI Videos Depicting CM Rekha Gupta As Liquor Vendor

The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of six social media URLs containing AI-generated videos, images and posts allegedly depicting Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta as a liquor vendor, hawker and delivery agent, observing that the content breached the line between permissible political satire and offensive depiction.

Justice Manoj Jain passed the interim order in a defamation suit filed by Gupta against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and others, seeking a permanent injunction against the publication and circulation of allegedly defamatory AI-generated content, besides damages.

The Court acknowledged that political leaders must have broad shoulders to tolerate criticism and satire, but emphasised that their dignity cannot be compromised.

"There is always a thin line between a political satire and offensive depiction," the Court observed.

It further remarked that in the guise of freedom of speech and expression, humour or satire, no one can be permitted to reduce an individual to an object of ridicule and insult.

Finding that Gupta had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in her favour, the Court directed Defendants 3, 4 and 5 to take down the six specified URLs forthwith.

The matter will next be heard on December 4.

AI videos allegedly depicted Chief Minister as liquor vendor

According to CM Gupta’s plaint, the impugned AI-generated images, videos and posters depicted Gupta as a liquor vendor, hawker and delivery agent, and as the head of a non-existent "Har Har Rekha or Ghar Ghar Theka" Yojana.

Her counsel submitted that one of the videos showed the Chief Minister serving drinks to men at night, amidst a brawl and against the backdrop of a romantic soundtrack.

The plaintiff argued that the portrayal was highly stigmatic, disgraceful and defamatory. It was also submitted that the existing online liquor booking facility merely allows users to check stocks, book and pay online, and collect their purchases in person from the vend; there is no provision for home delivery of liquor.

The Court was taken through the alleged defamatory material available on the X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts of the defendants.

According to the plaintiff's counsel, one video published on X on November 4 had approximately 75,000 views, 1,600 likes and 470 reposts when its screenshot was captured.

The plaint also referred to an AI-generated deepfake video involving both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, showing them together pouring liquor and ice cubes. The Court observed that the video images appeared to be a "near-perfect imitation".

'Dignity of any individual cannot be compromised': Delhi HC

The Court observed that holding public office automatically invites greater scrutiny, but that does not mean an individual's dignity can be compromised.

"When it comes to mere humour or satire, the Court may not interfere but when a person's dignity is attacked, tarnished and ridiculed, it becomes duty of the Court to adopt appropriate responsive measures," Justice Jain observed.

The Court further remarked: "Satire may though hurt conscience of any individual but it cannot be permitted to create irreparable wound on someone's dignity."

It added that although political parties are entitled to criticise government policies, decisions and administrative actions, an offensive portrayal of the Chief Minister through AI-generated videos cannot be justified as political satire.

The order stated: "Admittedly, any political party is entitled to criticize any governmental policy or decision or administrative action of the government but in the garb of expression of disapproval of any such policy, the offensive portrayal of Chief Minister, with the assistance of AI-generated videos, hurting her very dignity can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be in the realm of permissible political satire."

The Court also observed that the possibilities of depiction in the modern era were limitless, but the responsibility for creating and publishing such content remained within human control. Legitimate boundaries, it said, ought not to be transgressed.

Court refers to Raghav Chadha case on AI-generated content

The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Raghav Chadha v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors., observing that AI has increasingly become an instrument for voicing opinions on social media, including in the political context.

It noted that until publication of such content is appropriately regulated through stringent legislation, courts have a duty to examine whether the use of AI has crossed the threshold of infringing an individual's fundamental right to dignity.

The Court held that the videos and posts in the present case were not merely defamatory and offensive but also attacked the dignity of a woman holding constitutional authority.

"In the garb of freedom of speech and expression and under the disguise of humour and satire, no one can be permitted to be reduced to an object of ridicule and insult" it observed.

Six URLs ordered to be taken down

Holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the Court noted that the balance of convenience also favoured her, particularly because such content travels at "lightning speed" through social media platforms.

The six URLs listed in the plaint included videos and posts published or shared through AAP's official social media accounts on X, as well as a video posted on Facebook.

While issuing summons to all defendants, the Court specifically directed Defendants 3, 4 and 5 to take down the six URLs forthwith. It also directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

None appeared on behalf of the defendants despite advance notice. The Court directed them to file written statements within 30 days of receiving summons, accompanied by affidavits of admission and denial of the plaintiff's documents.

The suit seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing, circulating or disseminating the allegedly defamatory AI-generated content, besides damages.

Case Title: Smt. Rekha Gupta v Aam Aadmi Party & Ors.