The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to issue an order directing the blanket takedown of allegedly defamatory content about Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha, reported Bar and Bench.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, however, directed the removal of five posts that allegedly contained “explicit content, which is profane and vulgar in nature and falls outside the purview of harmless satirical humour”, according to Live Law.

Prasad also said that on a preliminary reading, the content flagged by Chadha did not violate his personality rights and was political criticism.

On April 26, seven of the Aam Aadmi Party’s 10 Rajya Sabha MPs, led by Chadha, split from the party and joined the BJP’s legislature unit in the Upper House. Rajya Sabha chairperson CP Radhakrishnan accepted the merger on April 27.

Chadha had moved the court, flagging content that alleged that he had sold himself for money, according to Bar and Bench.

He had sought an injunction against artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes, manipulated videos and deceptive digital content allegedly circulated on social media platforms.

During the hearing on the matter, the court asked if politicians could be so sensitive. Prasad also held that actions by politicians or political parties will be criticised by their rivals. This may also take the form of satire, he added.

“However, that does not automatically make such content offensive or defamatory,” the judge was quoted as saying by Live Law. “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 judge added that the court does not endorse the use of artificial intelligence to produce deepfake videos or morphed images, “when employed to harm the dignity of an individual”, reported The Indian Express.

At the same time, he acknowledged that the use of AI “has become an instrument for voicing opinions across social media platforms, which is fairly evident in the political context”.

Edited by Neerad Pandharipande.