There is a fine line between political criticism and defamation, the Delhi High Court told MP Raghav Chadha as he sought removal of “defamatory” content in which he allegedly “sold himself for money” after switching from the BJP from AAP.
Chadha filed a case in the Supreme Court against allegedly malicious and fabricated posts on social media, which he said seriously harmed his reputation and personal rights, news agency PTI reported. Chadha was represented by senior advocate Rajeev Nayar who confirmed that there were posts with obscene content.
Read also: X blocks CJP’s account in India, platform says due to ‘legal request’
“The line between defamation and criticism is very thin, isn’t it? It is very easy to slip to the other side, affecting your right to live with dignity and you cannot violate that aspect at the same time. Your right under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be taken away either,” the court added.
The Supreme Court reserved its ruling on the aspect of interim relief to remove such allegedly infringing content. Justice Subramonium Prasad acknowledged that while an individual has the right to live with dignity, he also cannot be deprived of the right to freedom of expression under the Constitution.
“It is a comment by an individual criticizing a political decision… As a political leader, can you be sensitive?” Justice Prasad was quoted as saying during the hearing.
“Since independence, we have grown up seeing cartoons of RK Laxman… Decisions taken politically and economically have been criticized in various ways… Now social media has gone to a greater extent. But ultimately, it is still within the ambit of someone’s comment,” the judge said.
Read also: Rahul Gandhi’s ‘traitorous’ statement about PM Modi and Amit Shah stirs controversy; Yogi Adityanath seeks apology
Advocate Nayar said the posts implying that he was “trading for money” could not be termed as “fair criticism” and said the offending posts “could not have survived even for a day”. Justice Prasad responded that prima facie it appears to be mere criticism.
“For me, at first glance, all of this is just criticism of a political decision,” the judge said orally.
Notably, the judge suggested appointing an amicus curiae to assist the court in this matter given that the alleged infringing posts against Chadha were by unknown individuals.
The judge also stated that there is a difference between marketing personality rights and political criticism.
Chadha’s lead lawyer said he was pressing his suit on the basis of defamation at this stage, not violation of character rights.
Chadha, who is also represented by advocates Satatya Anand and Nikhil Aradi, in his petition sought immediate removal and removal of the artificial intelligence-generated and deepfake content being widely circulated across social media platforms.
The lawsuit alleged that artificial intelligence and deepfake technology are being used in an unauthorized manner to create and disseminate manipulated content, which constitutes a serious violation of Chad’s legal and constitutional rights.
