The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of five objectionable social media posts targeting Member of Parliament Raghav Chadha. The court declined to grant interim protection to Chadha, who had sought immediate relief against the circulation of allegedly defamatory and AI-manipulated content. The order was pronounced by Justice Subramonium Prasad on 1 July 2026, following Chadha’s petition seeking protection of his reputation and personality rights.
According to Deccan Herald, the court instructed that only the posts specifically flagged as objectionable by Chadha be taken down, while stating that the remaining content did not prima facie amount to defamation. The judge clarified, “No personality rights is involved. However, I have asked to take down (certain content).”
As reported by The Indian Express, Chadha’s plea had objected to posts alleging he had “sold himself for money” following his move from the Aam Aadmi Party to the Bharatiya Janata Party. The court distinguished between criticism in the political arena and actionable defamation, noting that most posts constituted criticism rather than a violation of personality rights.
In its coverage, Hindustan Times highlighted that Chadha’s legal team welcomed the order as a step towards protecting individuals from organised defamatory content on social media. The court’s decision was based on a careful review of the flagged posts and the legal standards for defamation and personality rights.
The interim order was reserved in May 2026, after Chadha sought urgent removal of false, AI-generated, and deepfake content circulating online. The court reiterated that there is a distinction between commercialisation of personality rights and criticism of political decisions as clarified during proceedings.
“No personality rights is involved. However, I have asked to take down (certain content),” Justice Subramonium Prasad stated while pronouncing the interim order.
Several other public figures have previously approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights, with the court granting interim relief in some cases as seen in recent legal actions.
Chadha’s lawsuit contended that the unauthorised use of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology to create and disseminate manipulated content was a serious infringement of his legal and constitutional rights. The court, however, limited its relief to the removal of five specific posts, declining broader interim protection as the order specified.
The detailed order is awaited, but the court’s oral pronouncements have clarified its position on the boundaries between criticism, defamation, and the scope of personality rights for public figures as the hearing concluded.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.