Introduction:
The Bombay High Court has granted permission to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari to institute a civil suit against Meta Platforms, X (formerly Twitter), Google, and unknown persons over allegedly defamatory, AI-generated, and deepfake content circulated on social media linking him to the Ethanol Blended Petrol (E20) policy. The order was passed by Justice Abhay Ahuja on July 27, 2026, while hearing a petition filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.
The petition was filed as a procedural requirement because part of the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. By granting leave under Clause XII, the Court permitted Gadkari to institute a substantive civil suit seeking removal of the allegedly defamatory content, injunctions against its further circulation, and damages of ₹11 crore. A detailed order is awaited.
The proposed suit concerns several posts circulating on social media platforms which allegedly portray Gadkari as being personally responsible for the implementation of the Ethanol Blending Programme (EBP) and accuse him and his family of deriving financial benefits from the policy. Gadkari contends that these allegations are entirely false and that many of the posts involve manipulated videos, deepfakes, and AI-generated material that have damaged his personal and professional reputation.
The case assumes significance as it raises important legal questions relating to online defamation, intermediary liability, deepfake technology, personality rights, and the responsibility of digital platforms in dealing with AI-generated misinformation. It also reflects the growing judicial engagement with emerging technological challenges posed by artificial intelligence and synthetic media.
Arguments of the Parties:
The plaintiff, Nitin Gadkari, submitted that the Ethanol Blending Programme was introduced by the Central Government in 2003 as a national policy aimed at blending ethanol with petrol in a phased manner. He explained that the implementation of the E20 programme during 2025-2026 falls within the exclusive domain of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which has issued official notifications and public clarifications regarding the policy.
Gadkari argued that although he has served as the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways since 2014, he has no role in framing or implementing the Ethanol Blending Programme. Despite this, unidentified individuals allegedly created and circulated fabricated content falsely portraying him as the architect of the policy and accusing him of corruption, nepotism, conflict of interest, abuse of office, and personal enrichment.
The plaintiff asserted that the impugned material included deepfake videos, AI-generated content, manipulated images, and defamatory social media posts which falsely suggested that he and his family had received undue pecuniary benefits from the implementation of the E20 policy. According to him, these allegations were entirely baseless, malicious, and intended to tarnish his public image.
Gadkari clarified that his proposed suit was not intended to suppress public debate or legitimate criticism of government policies. He emphasised that citizens are entitled to question public officials and criticise governmental decisions. However, he distinguished fair criticism from fabricated allegations and submitted that freedom of speech does not extend to deliberately false, defamatory, or manipulated content created using artificial intelligence.
The proposed suit specifically identified twenty-four allegedly defamatory posts and sought directions for their removal from social media platforms. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunctions restraining further publication of similar content and claimed damages of ₹11 crore for injury caused to his reputation.
At this preliminary stage, no detailed submissions on behalf of Meta, X, Google, or the unknown defendants were recorded because the proceedings before Justice Abhay Ahuja were confined to deciding whether leave should be granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to institute the suit.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Abhay Ahuja granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, thereby permitting Gadkari to institute the proposed civil suit before the Bombay High Court. The order does not decide the merits of the allegations or determine whether the impugned content is defamatory. Instead, it merely enables the plaintiff to pursue his legal remedies before the appropriate forum.
Clause XII of the Letters Patent requires a litigant to obtain the High Court’s permission where only a part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. By granting such leave, the Court was satisfied that the procedural requirements for maintaining the proposed suit had been fulfilled.
The substantive issues concerning whether the social media posts amount to defamation, whether the impugned videos constitute unlawful deepfakes, whether intermediary platforms bear any legal responsibility, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages or removal of the content will be decided during the trial of the civil suit.
The proposed suit raises significant legal issues relating to the misuse of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. Indian courts have increasingly recognised that while freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects criticism, discussion, and public debate, it does not protect false statements that unlawfully damage an individual’s reputation. The right to reputation has consistently been recognised as an integral component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The suit also invokes personality and publicity rights by alleging that the plaintiff’s likeness and identity were exploited without consent through AI-generated and manipulated content. Such claims are becoming increasingly important as artificial intelligence enables the creation of realistic synthetic media capable of misleading the public.
The plaintiff has specifically stated that he does not seek to prevent genuine debate regarding governmental policies or his public functions. Instead, he seeks judicial protection only against content that is allegedly fabricated, malicious, and defamatory. This distinction reflects the established legal principle that robust public criticism remains protected, whereas knowingly false statements and manipulated content may attract civil liability.
With the grant of leave, the substantive suit is expected to be placed before Justice Arif Doctor for adjudication. The Court will subsequently examine the allegations, consider the liability of the digital platforms and other defendants, determine whether the identified posts violate the plaintiff’s legal rights, and decide whether the claimed reliefs, including removal of content, permanent injunctions, and damages of ₹11 crore, deserve to be granted.
The proceedings are likely to contribute to the evolving jurisprudence on online defamation, intermediary liability, personality rights, and the legal regulation of AI-generated content in India. As deepfake technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, the case may serve as an important precedent balancing freedom of expression with the protection of reputation in the digital age.