Satire part of politics, not always offensive: Delhi High Court on Raghav Chadha’s plea

Chadha had led an exodus of seven MPs of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the BJP on April 24, triggering fierce criticism from the AAP, including attacks and name-calling on social media. He had objected to posts on social media alleging that he had “sold himself for money”.

Chadha submits 52 documents with ‘objectionable’ content: What court said

The BJP MP had furnished 52 documents worth of alleged objectionable material, of which the court noted that six documents contained “explicit content, which is profane and vulgar in nature, and fall outside the purview of harmless satirical humour”.

The court prima facie held that the content furnished in the five documents was defamatory and ordered its removal.

On the remaining documents, where the court refused to order a take down, Justice Prasad noted, “… The court observes that humour about change in political party alliances, governance, policies, etc. are a part and parcel of politics. Any action by a politician belonging to any political party will, in most, if not all circumstances, invite criticism from, upset, or create turmoil amongst, the general public or members from rival political parties, which may at times be expressed in the form of satirical humour.”

“… However, that does not automatically make such content offensive or defamatory. At the cost of repetition, public figures assuming such positions of power must accept being at the receiving end of the satirical humour as a necessary and inevitable aspect of their profession, though unpleasant.”

Why court ordered takedown

After ruling that Chadha’s grievance is not covered under the ambit of personality rights, the court then tested if the alleged objectionable material would be under the purview of defamatory content.

This, the court has opined, was necessitated as till the time AI content is not regulated by legislation, it becomes judicial duty to examine such grievances.

“… The court deems it fit to declare that this Court, in no way or manner, endorses the use of AI to produce deepfake videos, morphed images, etc., when employed to harm the dignity of an individual which would strike at the very root of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India….”

In the same vein, it said it acknowledges the contemporary position “that the use of AI has become an instrument for voicing opinions across social media platforms, which is fairly evident in the political context”.

“… In this context, this Court believes that at least till the time most such content is not regulated by a stringent legislation, it becomes a judicial duty upon receipt of grievances such as those in the present suit to examine whether the use of AI has reached the threshold of infringing upon an individual’s fundamental right to dignity or not. Needless to state, a fair balance is to be struck with an individual’s freedom of speech and expression which is also granted under the Constitution of India,” Justice Prasad reasoned.