Can't curb political criticism: Court on Raghav Chadha's personality rights plea

The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to grant interim relief to BJP MP Raghav Chadha in his personality rights case, orally observing that criticism, satire and cartoons targeting political figures cannot be curbed merely because they are unpalatable. Hearing Chadha’s plea against alleged misuse of his image and persona on social media platforms, Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked that there appeared to be no prima facie case of violation of personality rights, noting that the posts in question related to criticism of decisions taken in the political arena. Read Full Story Chadha, who was an AAP Rajya Sabha MP, had recently switched to the BJP following differences with the party leadership. Subsequently, he faced intense online criticism over the move. "There is a thin line between defamation and criticism. The first impression in my mind. Prima facie, there is no personality rights violation. A decision taken by you in the political arena is being criticised," the court noted. The court underscored that political cartoons and satire have long been part of democratic discourse, referring to legendary cartoonist RK Laxman and his iconic political commentary. "Undoubtedly, from Independence we are seeing RK Laxman’s cartoons. At that point of time probably social media had not gone to that extent today it has," the bench said during the hearing. The High Court also indicated that the grievance raised by Chadha may fall more appropriately within the realm of defamation law rather than personality rights. “You can file a defamation case if you want,” the court orally told the petitioner’s side. Senior Advocate Rajeev Nayar, appearing for Chadha, argued that the content circulated online falsely portrayed the AAP leader as someone seeking monetary gains and crossed the line of fair criticism. "They are saying I have gone for money. This can’t be fair criticism," Nayar submitted before the court. Speaking outside the court, counsel for Chadha, Advocate Satatya Anand, alleged orchestrated campaign against the MP. "We are pressing for a stay on the content and removal of the content from the website. There are a lot of defamatory content due to the political transition which has happened recently. These are orchestrated campaigns being run by several agencies," he said. Counsel appearing for Meta opposed the plea, arguing that many of the posts cited by Chadha were either newspaper reports or otherwise benign in nature. "They have put 32 screenshots. Many of them are from newspapers and are benign content," Meta’s counsel submitted. During the proceedings, the bench observed that the dispute raised important questions concerning the balance between freedom of speech and protection of reputation. It noted that the distinction between criticism and defamation was often narrow and context-dependent. "I will appoint an amicus to assist the court. There are cases and cases, the line between defamation and criticism is quite thin. It’s very easy to see it to the other side which affects your right to live with dignity. At the same time, Article 19 right can’t be taken away," the bench observed. The court further indicated that the present matter may not warrant an interim injunction at this stage, while reserving its order on the plea seeking interim directions. The Delhi High Court later reserved orders and permitted Chadha to amend his petition to include a defamation claim if he chose to pursue that remedy. The case centres on Chadha’s allegation that social media posts, memes and online content using his name and image amounted to unauthorised exploitation of his personality and harmed his reputation. However, the court refused to entertain this contention, saying criticism of political decisions cannot be termed as a violation of personality rights. Ends