The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to grant immediate interim relief to BJP leader and former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha in his plea seeking to restrain social media posts criticizing his political crossover. Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved the court’s verdict on Chadha’s application for an interim injunction, while observing prima facie that the suit does not appear to involve the commercial protection of personality rights, but rather falls under the scope of political criticism.
Background of the Case
The legal dispute arose following Raghav Chadha’s high-profile resignation from the AAP in April, after which he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) alongside six other Rajya Sabha MPs from his former party.
Following his political transition, Chadha became the target of severe social media backlash, with various online posts alleging that he “sold himself for money.” Objecting to these statements, Chadha approached the High Court seeking to protect his “personality rights.” In his suit, he sought the takedown of objectionable posts as well as the removal of circulating AI-generated and deepfake content that allegedly exploited his likeness.
Arguments of the Parties
Representing Chadha, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar strongly urged the court to grant immediate interim relief and order the removal of the flagged posts, arguing that the allegations crossed the boundary of fair comment.
“The story which has gone is that I have traded for money. That can’t be criticism,” Nayar argued before the Bench.
Chadha’s counsel contended that the targeted campaign, coupled with the unauthorized exploitation of his likeness and deepfake materials, directly infringed upon his personality rights.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed strong reservations about framing political criticism as an infringement of personality rights. Addressing Chadha’s counsel, the Court indicated that the appropriate remedy for allegations of receiving money for a political switch lies under the law of defamation rather than the specialized doctrine of personality rights.
Delivering his oral observations, Justice Prasad remarked:
“Here it is just criticism… on decisions taken by you in the political arena… prima facie, they are only criticism of political decision… it is an attack or critique.”
The Court drew a clear legal boundary between commercial exploitation and public accountability, stating:
“There is a difference between commercialisation of personality rights and criticism.”
Decision and Current Status
The Bench refrained from passing an immediate injunction to restrain or take down the criticized posts. Instead, Justice Prasad reserved orders specifically on the aspect of the interim relief sought by Chadha.
This lawsuit is part of a growing trend before the Delhi High Court, which has recently seen a flurry of high-profile “personality rights” suits filed by public figures, including politicians such as Shashi Tharoor, sports personalities, and social media influencers seeking judicial protection against the unauthorized use of their likenesses and digital assets.
