Delhi high court to Raghav Chadha: A thin line between political criticism & defamation

NEW DELHI: There is a “thin line” between political criticism and defamation, Delhi High Court reminded MP Raghav Chadha, questioning whether a public figure could be overly “sensitive” to social media posts that appeared to criticise a political decision — his alleged switch from AAP to BJP.

Chadha had filed a suit seeking action against what he described as malicious and fabricated social media posts, claiming they were gravely prejudicial to his reputation and personality rights.

"It is a comment by an individual criticising a political decision... As a political leader, can you be sensitive," asked Justice Subramonium Prasad during the hearing as Chadha’s counsel pressed for interim relief.

"Right from Independence, we have grown up seeing RK Laxman's cartoons... In various ways, criticism has been made on decisions taken politically, economically... Now social media has gone to greater extent. But still, at the end of the day, it's still within the realm of a comment by a person," the judge pointed out to senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Chadha.

Nayar contended there were posts with profane content, including where the politician is shown as having "sold himself away for money" and sought an interim order, but the court declined.

Reserving its verdict on the aspect of interim relief to take down such alleged offending content, HC acknowledged that while an individual has the right to live with dignity, the right to free speech under the Constitution also cannot be taken away.

Chadha's counsel maintained that posts implying he "traded for money" cannot be termed as "fair criticism", urging HC to intervene, and further argued that the offending posts "can't stay even for a day."

Justice Prasad responded that prima facie they only appeared to be criticism. "According to me, prima facie, these are all only criticism of a political decision," he orally said.

"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 court added.

Considering that the alleged offending posts were by unknown individuals, the court suggested appointing an amicus curiae to assist it, noting there was a difference between commercialising personality rights and political criticism against an individual.

However, Nayar contended he was pressing his claim on the basis of defamation at this stage, not violation of personality rights. HC then reserved its verdict.

Chadha sought immediate removal and takedown of false, AI-generated and deepfake content circulating widely across social media platforms.

His plea contended that artificial intelligence and deepfake technology were being used in an unauthorised manner to create and disseminate manipulated content, which was a serious infringement of Chadha's legal and constitutional rights.