Delhi High Court (Representative Image)
The Delhi High Court directed Meta Platforms to immediately disable access to the disputed content across its platforms and comply with the order within 24 hours.
The direction came while hearing a petition filed by a woman who alleged that her face had been morphed into an obscene image featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The woman alleged that the image had been circulated on social media and used on banners during a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
Justice Girish Kathpalia termed the matter extraordinary and observed that it was “not just a matter of one lady but a matter of the Prime Minister of this country.”
The court also issued notices to Meta and four individuals named in the petition, Saurav Das, Abhijit Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Ratna Singh, who the petitioner has accused of creating and circulating the alleged deepfake.
The allegations remain subject to investigation and adjudication.
According to the woman’s petition, the alleged morphed image was displayed on banners at a protest at Jantar Mantar.
She alleged that the image was shown to people along with obscene slogans and that footage of the banners was subsequently circulated online, including through Instagram.
The petitioner further alleged that versions of the morphed images were uploaded on pornographic websites.
The allegations were placed before the court as part of the petition and are being investigated by the authorities.
The petitioner also told the court that the circulation of the alleged deepfake was followed by serious threats.
She claimed that she received threats of rape, gang rape, acid attacks and death.
She further said the threats had forced her to remain largely confined to her home.
In view of the circumstances presented before it, the High Court ordered complete police protection for the woman. It also directed authorities to keep her residential address confidential.
The court has directed Delhi Police to submit an initial status report within one week on the progress of the investigation.
The woman had approached the Delhi Cyber Police and an FIR was registered in connection with the alleged circulation of the deepfake.
The status report is expected to place before the court details of the investigation carried out so far.
The petition names four individuals associated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).
They are: Saurav Das, Abhijit Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka, Ratna Singh.
The petitioner has accused them of posting and circulating the alleged morphed image.
The court has issued notices to the respondents. The allegations against them have not been established by the court and will be examined through the legal process.
The court’s observation focused on the unusual circumstances surrounding the petition.
Justice Kathpalia indicated that while ordinary remedies are available under law in cases involving objectionable online content, the circumstances of the present case warranted the court’s intervention.
The judge specifically referred to the fact that the disputed material allegedly involved the Prime Minister.
The court’s remark was made while directing the authorities to act on the matter and expressing the expectation that appropriate action would follow.
The case also highlights the growing legal challenge posed by AI-generated and digitally manipulated images.
A deepfake can combine or alter a person’s face or other visual features to create content that appears authentic even though it has been digitally fabricated.
In this case, the petitioner alleges that an obscene image was created by digitally manipulating her face and placing it alongside that of the Prime Minister.
The case will now involve both the alleged misuse and circulation of the manipulated material and the threats that the petitioner says followed its dissemination.
Meta has been given 24 hours to disable access to the disputed content.
Delhi Police has one week to submit its initial status report on the investigation. The respondents named in the petition have also been issued notices.
The court’s directions do not determine the truth of the allegations against the individuals named in the petition. Those allegations remain subject to investigation and further proceedings.
The immediate focus is therefore on the removal of the disputed material, protection of the petitioner and the police investigation into its alleged creation and circulation.
