The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its decision on interim relief requested by BJP MP Raghav Chadha, who filed a suit alleging misuse of his personality rights through AI-generated deepfakes, altered visuals, and manipulated social media content. Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that the content identified by Chadha did not, at first glance, show a violation of personality rights and suggested he could amend his suit to a defamation case, according to a Hindu report.
Chadha sought an injunction to prevent the circulation of AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated videos, synthetic voice cloning, morphed visuals, fabricated speeches, and other deceptive digital content on social media. According to a Livelaw report, he also requested John Doe relief against unknown parties and other named defendants to stop them from using his personal traits, including photographs, without his consent.
“Criticism of a Political Decision, Not Personality Rights Violation”: At the start of the hearing, Justice Prasad noted that, unlike previous cases involving the commercial or unauthorised use of a public figure’s identity, this case concerns criticism of a political decision. The court remarked, “Unlike other judgments, here it’s just criticism taken on decisions taken by you in the political arena…It is a comment by a person criticising a political decision.”
The court further stated that criticism of political decisions does not automatically constitute an infringement of personality rights and that previous judgments on personality rights may not be relevant to this case.
The thin line between defamation and criticism: Justice Prasad recognised the difficulty of distinguishing between the two, noting that the boundary is often hard to define. “The line between defamation and criticism is quite thin, right? It’s very easy to slip to the other side, which affects your right to live with dignity, and you cannot infringe on this side at the same time. Your Article 19 (1) (a) right also cannot be taken away,” the bench observed.
The Bench further observed that political leaders have long faced satire, cartoons, and criticism, referencing the work of R.K. Laxman: “From independence, we are seeing RK Laxman cartoons. At that point of time, probably social media had not gone to that extent today it has,” Justice Prasad observed.
Justice Prasad also indicated that the court may appoint an amicus curiae to address broader legal questions, particularly the balance between free speech and dignity in the context of artificial intelligence and social media.
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
