The Bombay High Court has directed social media platforms to remove AI-generated and deepfake content that falsely linked Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari to the ethanol-blended petrol (E20) programme.
Granting urgent interim relief on Wednesday, Justice Arif Doctor described some of the content as "absolutely vile and abusive" and "certainly defamatory". The court directed platforms including Meta and Google to remove the posts identified in Gadkari's petition.
The order resolves one dispute before the court. It also comes at a time when AI-generated deepfakes are spreading rapidly, bringing renewed attention to how harmful manipulated content can be addressed at scale.
Why Did Nitin Gadkari Go To Court?
Gadkari filed a civil suit seeking Rs 11 crore in damages against Meta, X, Google/YouTube, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department of Telecommunications, and unidentified users described as John Doe defendants.
According to the petition, AI-generated videos and manipulated posts falsely linked Gadkari and his family to the ethanol-blended petrol programme while alleging corruption.
The petition stated that the ethanol-blended petrol programme was introduced in 2003 and is administered by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Gadkari's ministry has no role in implementing the programme.
The minister argued that the content was false, fabricated and defamatory, and violated his personality rights.
What Did The Bombay High Court Say?
During the hearing, Justice Arif Doctor viewed some of the content placed before the court and made strong observations about its nature.
"The material which plaintiff seeks to pull down, I can only say that the same is absolutely vile and abusive. Such material should have no place on public platform, which is accessible to everyone including young."
The judge held that Gadkari had made out a case for interim relief.
Meta and Google informed the court that they would remove the content identified in the petition. The court accepted their statement.
Justice Doctor also observed that social media intermediaries ought to have a framework to deal with such content without requiring court intervention every time.
The High Court directed intermediaries to provide basic subscriber information of the content creators so they can be added as parties to the suit. It also allowed Gadkari to notify platforms about any future defamatory posts related to the case and approach the court if disputes arise over their removal.
The matter will be heard again after four weeks.
The Bigger AI Challenge
The Bombay High Court's directions are limited to the content identified in Gadkari's petition. Like any civil court, it ruled on the dispute placed before it.
The case, however, comes amid growing concerns over AI-generated deepfakes. The European Parliament has cited estimates suggesting the number of deepfakes shared online could increase from around 500,000 in 2023 to nearly 8 million in 2025, reflecting how quickly manipulated videos, images and audio are proliferating.
As AI tools become more accessible, deepfakes are no longer limited to public figures. Journalists, celebrities, professionals and private citizens have also reported cases of AI-generated impersonation, manipulated videos and non-consensual imagery.
Justice Doctor's observation that social media platforms should have a framework to remove such content without requiring court intervention points to a challenge that extends beyond a single lawsuit. As AI-generated content becomes easier to create and distribute, policymakers, technology companies and regulators continue to debate how harmful deepfakes can be identified and removed more quickly while balancing free expression and due process.
The Gadkari case is one example of a growing issue. The broader question is how existing legal and platform mechanisms will respond as AI-generated misinformation becomes more widespread.
