The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, directing major social media platforms and online intermediaries to promptly remove allegedly defamatory, abusive and AI-generated deepfake content circulating against him. The court observed that such material was offensive, obscene and unfit for public platforms.
Court Pulls Up Social Media Platforms
Hearing Gadkari’s civil suit, Justice Arif Doctor remarked that the content placed before the court was “vile, abusive and obscene” and questioned whether leading technology companies had any effective system to automatically detect and remove such posts before victims were forced to seek judicial intervention.
The court expressed concern over the growing misuse of social media and AI-generated content, observing that platforms should have mechanisms to identify and act against harmful material without waiting for court orders.
Platforms Directed to Remove Identified Content
During the proceedings, counsel representing Meta and Google informed the court that the disputed content identified in the petition would be removed. Accepting the statement, the High Court directed that if Gadkari discovers similar defamatory or deepfake posts in the future, he may notify the concerned platforms, which must take appropriate action in accordance with the court’s directions.
The court clarified that only defamatory, abusive and manipulated content falls within the scope of the order, while genuine criticism remains protected. It also stated that if any dispute arises regarding whether content qualifies as fair criticism, the platforms may seek further clarification from the court.
Suit Seeks Permanent Ban, ₹11 Crore Damages
Gadkari has filed a civil suit seeking the immediate removal of fabricated online content, a permanent injunction against its circulation and damages amounting to ₹11 crore.
According to the petition, several AI-generated and deepfake posts falsely alleged that the Union Minister and members of his family benefited financially from the Centre’s E20 ethanol-blended fuel policy. Gadkari has maintained that he has no role in framing or implementing the government’s ethanol policy and argued that the lawsuit is aimed solely at preventing the spread of false and defamatory information rather than restricting legitimate public criticism.
The High Court has directed the respondents to file their replies before the next hearing, which has been scheduled after four weeks.
