Raghav Chadha had earlier filed a plea alleging violation of his personality rights through AI-generated deepfakes, doctored videos and allegedly defamatory social media posts targeting him for his political switch from AAP to BJP.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 21, 2026) expressed prima facie reservations over a plea by Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha alleging violation of his personality rights through AI-generated deepfakes, doctored videos and allegedly defamatory social media posts directed at him over his political switch from the Aam Aadmi Party to the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The court noted that the case appeared, at least at first glance, to concern criticism of the actions of a political leader rather than a violation of personality rights, underlining the “rather thin” line between political criticism and defamation.
The comments come amid growing legal scrutiny of AI-generated content and its impact on the reputations of public figures.
Justice Amit Bansal said the material presented before the court did not prima facie reveal a violation of personality rights. “A decision made by you in the political sphere is criticized,” the judge observed during the hearing.
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, who represented Mr Chadha, argued that the online content had crossed the threshold from political criticism to defamation. He argued that some publications falsely suggested that the parliamentarian had “sold out for money.”
However, the court questioned whether the grievance could be addressed within the framework of personality rights jurisprudence.
“As a political leader, can you be sensitive?” Judge Bansal commented, while distinguishing between “commercialization of personality rights and criticism.”
The court referred to an earlier ruling involving Shashi Tharoor, in which the Congress leader’s personality rights were granted protection due to his distinctive speech and public persona.
It further noted that while the right to reputation and dignity deserved protection, the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression provided for in Article 19 could not be lightly limited.
After Mr. Nayar sought interim relief against the allegedly defamatory content, the court ordered the suit to be registered as a suit and reserved its order on the interim plea.
Published – May 21, 2026 09:40 pm IST
