The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its decision on interim relief requested by BJP MP Raghav Chadha, who filed a suit alleging misuse of his personality rights through AI-generated deepfakes, altered visuals, and manipulated social media content. Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that the content identified by Chadha did not, at first glance, show a violation of personality rights and suggested he could amend his suit to a defamation case, according to a Hindu report.

VIDEO | On Delhi High Court reserving order on Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha's plea over alleged AI deepfake misuse of personality rights, Counsel for Raghav Chadha, Advocate Satatya Anand says, "We presented our arguments. The High Court heard everything and has now reserved its… pic.twitter.com/yc5vf9EEA0

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) May 21, 2026

Chadha sought an injunction to prevent the circulation of AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated videos, synthetic voice cloning, morphed visuals, fabricated speeches, and other deceptive digital content on social media. According to a Livelaw report, he also requested John Doe relief against unknown parties and other named defendants to stop them from using his personal traits, including photographs, without his consent.

“Criticism of a Political Decision, Not Personality Rights Violation”: At the start of the hearing, Justice Prasad noted that, unlike previous cases involving the commercial or unauthorised use of a public figure’s identity, this case concerns criticism of a political decision. The court remarked, “Unlike other judgments, here it’s just criticism taken on decisions taken by you in the political arena…It is a comment by a person criticising a political decision.”

The court further stated that criticism of political decisions does not automatically constitute an infringement of personality rights and that previous judgments on personality rights may not be relevant to this case.

The thin line between defamation and criticism: Justice Prasad recognised the difficulty of distinguishing between the two, noting that the boundary is often hard to define. “The line between defamation and criticism is quite thin, right? It’s very easy to slip to the other side, which affects your right to live with dignity, and you cannot infringe on this side at the same time. Your Article 19 (1) (a) right also cannot be taken away,” the bench observed.

The Bench further observed that political leaders have long faced satire, cartoons, and criticism, referencing the work of R.K. Laxman: “From independence, we are seeing RK Laxman cartoons. At that point of time, probably social media had not gone to that extent today it has,” Justice Prasad observed.

Justice Prasad also indicated that the court may appoint an amicus curiae to address broader legal questions, particularly the balance between free speech and dignity in the context of artificial intelligence and social media.

Chadha’s Arguments: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Chadha, argued that allegations claiming Chadha had “sold himself for money” constitute defamation rather than criticism. He clarified that Chadha seeks only interim relief regarding the allegedly defamatory posts.

“They are saying I have gone for money. This can’t be fair criticism,” Nayar submitted. He limited his request for interim relief to the allegedly defamatory content. The court observed that the line between criticism and defamation is narrow and indicated the issue may need further review.

Counsel appearing for Meta submitted that several screenshots relied upon by Chadha were merely newspaper reports.

Personality Rights vs. Free Speech: This case arises during a broader debate in the Delhi High Court regarding the scope of personality rights claims against online speech, satire, and news reporting. In a recent case involving yoga guru Baba Ramdev, social media platforms argued that personality rights should not be used to suppress parody, satire, political commentary, or factual reporting. X and Meta opposed broad takedown requests, cautioning that indiscriminate removal orders could chill free speech. Justice Jyoti Singh noted then that public figures “can’t be so sensitive” to criticism and fact-checking, while also distinguishing between genuinely harmful deepfakes and protected expression.

The Ramdev case included allegations of AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated visuals, fake endorsements, and parody accounts using his likeness. The court granted limited protection against unauthorised AI-generated misuse of Ramdev’s identity while also closely examining efforts to remove satirical posts, memes, and news reports. This approach highlights the judiciary’s effort to balance personality rights with Article 19 free speech protections.

A Growing Line of Personality Rights Cases: The Court has protected the personality rights of several public figures, including political leaders, entrepreneurs, actors, spiritual preachers, singers, and athletes. Notable examples include Shashi Tharoor, Pawan Kalyan, Aman Gupta, Allu Arjun, Mohanlal, Aniruddhacharya, Jubin Nautiyal, Sunil Gavaskar, Kajol Devgan, R. Madhavan, and NTR Junior.

The Delhi High Court has repeatedly observed in earlier cases that the identity, voice, and image of well-known personalities possess commercial and reputational value and deserve protection from unauthorised exploitation.

Read more:

• Can Personality Rights & the DPDP Act Protect ‘Viral Celebrities’ from Deepfakes?
• Bombay HC protects Shilpa Shetty’s personality rights, orders takedown of deepfakes and infringing content
• Delhi HC To Protect Telugu Actor Nagarjuna’s Personality Rights Against AI Misuse