Politicians Must Tolerate Political Humour; Satirical Criticism Not Necessarily Defamation: Delhi High Court In Raghav Chadha Case
The Delhi High Court has ruled that politicians must tolerate political humour and that satirical criticism does not necessarily amount to defamation.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that humor about change in political party alliances, governance or policies are a part and parcel of politics. Further, any action by a politician belonging to any political party will invite criticism from the public or members from rival political parties, which may at times be expressed in the form of satirical humor.
“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 humor as a necessary and inevitable aspect of their profession, though unpleasant,” the Court said.
The judge made the observations while directing take down of certain “obscene and explicit ” content posted against BJP MP Raghav Chadha on social media.
While doing so, the Court however clarified that majority of the allegedly defamatory content mentioned in the suit was satirical expression of Chadha's decisions in the political sphere, and such decisions are likely to attract both “bouquets and brickbats” at the same time.
The Court underscored that a public figure should not be so thin-skinned so as to complain about any criticism of his decisions and such criticism ought to be viewed with humility.
Justice Prasad said that the 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, as the same would strike at the very root of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
It nonetheless acknowledged the contemporary position where use of AI has become an instrument for voicing opinions across social media platforms, particularly in the political context.
“In this context, this Court believes that at least till the time most of 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,” the Court added.
Chadha had sought take down of “defamatory” content allegedly showing that he “sold himself for money.” The Court today said that it is ordering takedown of five documents which contain explicit content, which is profane and vulgar in nature, and fall outside the purview of harmless satirical humor.
The matter will now be heard on August 18.
Chadha's suit seeks a john doe relief against unknown entities, as well as various other known defendants. He had sought to restrain the defendants from exploiting his personal traits, including his photos, without his consent.
Title: RAGHAV CHADHA v. ASHOK KUMAR JOHN DOE AND ORS