The Bombay High Court has scheduled for August 5 the hearing of a civil suit filed by Union Minister Nitin Gadkari against Meta, X Corp, Google LLC, and unknown persons over what the minister alleges are defamatory deepfakes and AI-generated posts related to India's ethanol-blended fuel policy. The case, which will be heard by a bench of Justice Arif Doctor, raises critical questions about the liability of technology platforms for AI-generated content.
The Allegations
Gadkari's plea claims that unknown persons have uploaded and circulated posts and deepfake content falsely portraying him as being personally responsible for the ethanol-blending programme and alleging that he and his family have financially benefited from it. The suit states these allegations are "false, malicious and grossly defamatory without an iota of doubt" and designed to create a misleading public perception against Gadkari. The minister clarified that the ethanol-blending programme and E20 policy are administered by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, not him personally.
"False, malicious and grossly defamatory without an iota of doubt" — from Gadkari's plea
The suit also alleges that the fake content has caused irreparable harm to Gadkari's reputation and personality rights.
Legal Action Sought
Gadkari is seeking a permanent injunction against the circulation of such fake and fabricated content, along with an immediate takedown of all such posts. His advocate Sandeep Ladda has been directed by the court to serve copies of the civil suit to the respondents. The plea also seeks an injunction against the circulation of such content in the future.
Defendants and Platform Responsibility
The suit names Meta, X Corp (formerly Twitter), Google LLC, and unknown persons as defendants. It alleges that these platforms have hosted deepfake and AI-generated content that violates Gadkari's rights. While the plea clarifies it does not seek to stifle fair public debate or bona fide comments, it claims that the reckless and defamatory allegations have crossed the line of lawful speech.
Broader Implications
The case underscores the growing challenge of AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes. The outcome of the August 5 hearing could set a precedent for how Indian courts handle deepfake-related defamation cases involving public figures and technology platforms. The suit explicitly argues that the content crosses the line of lawful speech while not attempting to curb fair debate, highlighting the tension between free expression and protection from AI-generated harm.
Sources:
