Delhi High Court: CJP Leaders Agree To Gaurav Bhatia AI Posts Takedown

• CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka agreed to remove AI-generated posts on X targeting BJP leader Gaurav Bhatia.
• The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, recorded this undertaking and issued summons to Das, Ranka, and CJP founder Abhijit Dipke in the defamation suit.
• The court directed Meta and X to consider requests from Gaurav Bhatia for the removal of identical future posts and to communicate any removal impediments.
• While a dynamic injunction was sought by Bhatia, the court did not grant it at this initial stage of the proceedings.
• The court explicitly stated it was not imputing any wrongdoing against the CJP defendants at this time, focusing on de-escalation.

This ruling signals that Indian courts are prepared to direct social media platforms to remove future identical defamatory content, even without a full dynamic injunction at the initial stage.

In a recent development at the Delhi High Court, leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, have agreed to remove artificial intelligence (AI) generated posts published on the social media platform X. These posts were the subject of a defamation lawsuit initiated by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela presided over the proceedings, formally documenting the undertaking by Das and Ranka to delete the objectionable content targeting Bhatia. Counsel representing Saurav Das confirmed to the court that the impugned tweets would be taken down on the same day, an assurance echoed by counsel for Ashutosh Ranka regarding his specific tweet. This swift agreement marks an initial resolution concerning the immediate online content.

The defamation suit, filed by Gaurav Bhatia, also includes CJP founder Abhijit Dipke as a defendant. The court has issued summons to all three individuals — Das, Ranka, and Dipke — in connection with the case. They have been directed to submit their formal responses to Bhatia's legal complaint, indicating the ongoing nature of the broader legal dispute.

Beyond the immediate removal of existing posts, the Delhi High Court has provided a pathway for Gaurav Bhatia to address any identical defamatory content that may emerge in the future. The court stipulated that Bhatia is entitled to approach social media giants Meta and X directly if similar posts appear. These platforms are then expected to evaluate such requests and implement appropriate actions.

Should Meta or X encounter any obstacles in removing future identical posts, they are mandated to communicate these impediments to Bhatia. This provision empowers Bhatia to subsequently return to the court for further intervention if necessary. While Bhatia's legal team advocated for a dynamic injunction to proactively prevent future identical content, the court clarified that such a broad directive was not being issued at this particular stage of the proceedings.

This ruling signals that Indian courts are prepared to direct social media platforms to remove future identical defamatory content, even without a full dynamic injunction at the initial stage. Lawyers should advise clients on the potential liability for AI-generated defamatory posts and the increasing judicial willingness to compel platform action for content removal in defamation cases.

Despite the directives for content removal and the issuance of summons, the Delhi High Court has maintained a neutral stance regarding the culpability of the CJP defendants at this juncture. Justice Gedela explicitly stated that the court is not currently imputing any wrongdoing against Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka, or Abhijit Dipke.

The presiding judge underscored the court's immediate objective, remarking that the priority for the time being is to ensure that no further acrimony escalates over the issue. This statement reinforces that while procedural steps are being taken and content is being addressed, the court has yet to make a definitive judgment on the merits of the defamation claims against the defendants. The legal process is still in its early stages, with the defendants now required to present their defense.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench