The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed social media platforms to remove allegedly defamatory and AI-generated deepfake content targeting Union Minister Nitin Gadkari after observing that the material placed before it was “vile and abusive” and had no place on public platforms.
Justice Arif Doctor passed the interim order in a civil suit filed by Gadkari against Meta Platforms, X, Google, YouTube, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department of Telecommunications, and unidentified persons impleaded as John Doe defendants.
A John Doe defendant is a temporary placeholder name used in a lawsuit when the true identity of a person or entity is unknown at the time the complaint is filed.
The court noted that Meta and Google had agreed to remove the specific content identified in the suit and recorded their statements. It accordingly granted ad interim relief, directing the platforms to take down the material listed by Gadkari.
The judge further held that if Gadkari discovers additional defamatory or deepfake content in future, he may notify the concerned intermediaries, which will be required to act on those complaints. In cases where the nature of the content is debatable, the platforms were given liberty to seek appropriate directions from the court.
During the hearing, counsel for Meta submitted that some online material could amount to fair comment. Gadkari’s counsel clarified that the suit was not intended to suppress legitimate criticism of the minister or government policy.
Justice Doctor agreed, observing that the proceedings were confined to abusive and defamatory content rather than fair criticism.
The court also encouraged Meta and Google to evolve a mechanism for addressing such complaints without requiring affected individuals to approach the court each time. The matter has been posted for further hearing after four weeks.
In his suit, Gadkari sought permanent and mandatory injunctions directing the removal of videos, images and social media posts that he claimed had been manipulated using artificial intelligence.
According to the plaint, the content falsely portrays him as personally responsible for the Centre’s E20 ethanol-blending programme and alleges that he and his family financially benefited from it.
The suit specifically disputes claims linking his son, Nikhil Gadkari, and CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited to the ethanol programme. Gadkari contended that the allegations are baseless and falsely suggest corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of office.
He also argued that responsibility for implementing the ethanol-blending programme rests with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, making the claims factually incorrect.
While maintaining that he does not object to fair and bona fide criticism, Gadkari argued that the impugned content crossed the line by using fabricated visuals, fake quotations and abusive language, which, according to him, cannot be protected as political commentary or satire.
