Back
vs CJP: Rs 2 crore over AI-generated quote in Delhi HC
A high-stakes legal battle over the weaponisation of artificial intelligence in public discourse has landed before the . national spokesperson and senior advocate has filed a Rs 2 crore against the (CJP) and its key leaders—Saurav Das, Abhijit Dipke, and Ashutosh Ranka—over an AI-generated graphic that falsely attributed incendiary remarks to him. The suit, which seeks a restraining the defendants from publishing further defamatory material, is listed for an initial hearing before the High Court.
The controversy erupted on , when CJP spokesperson Saurav Das posted a graphic on social media platform X purportedly showing Bhatia’s comments about one Swatantra Bhardwaj—an individual accused of assaulting the father of a CJP activist. The graphic claimed that Bhatia had labelled Bhardwaj a “dimagi naxali” and a “jaatiwaadi” harbouring the poison of casteism. Bhatia immediately refuted the post, stating that the quote was entirely fabricated and AI-generated. He issued a 24-hour ultimatum demanding its removal and an .
Although Das deleted the post within 83 minutes, he refused to apologise, instead acknowledging the AI origin of the content on X. Meanwhile, CJP co-convener Ashutosh Ranka amplified the graphic by reposting it, and founder Abhijit Dipke lent his weight to the online campaign. Bhatia, aggrieved by what he termed a deliberate attempt to create a false nexus between himself and statements he never made, moved the seeking .
The Legal Grounds: Beyond
The , filed under the of the , contends that the defendants did not merely engage in criticism, comment, or disagreement with any statement actually made by Bhatia. Rather, they falsely represented to the public that Bhatia had made statements that he never uttered. The suit argues that the impugned material, accompanied by Bhatia’s photograph, created an unmistakable and false nexus between him and the disseminated content.
“The defendant no 1 & 2 (Das and Ranka) did not merely engage in criticism, comment or disagreement with any statement actually made by the plaintiff. Rather, defendant no 1 & 2 falsely represented to the public that the plaintiff had made statements, which, in fact, he had never made,” the plea states.
Beyond the specific graphic, the suit paints a broader pattern of conduct by CJP and its leaders. It alleges that the unregistered collective, which publicly claims to have no political links, systematically uses social media platforms to comment upon, criticise, and attack the judiciary in ways that go beyond on specific orders. The plea points to previous instances where Das, in particular, has targeted judicial officers—including a recent attack on Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma for not recusing herself from a case involving Arvind Kejriwal—and has celebrated the incarceration of Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
“The Defendant No. 1 (Das), while holding himself out as Chief Spokesperson/Co-convenor of an unregistered collective, has chosen to publicly celebrate and endorse an individual facing serious criminal allegations by declaring the judicial process itself to be permanently stained, thereby demonstrating a propensity to use social-media platforms for institutional denigration,” the suit asserts.
The AI Dimension: New Frontier in Defamation Law
The case marks a significant moment in Indian jurisprudence regarding the intersection of artificial intelligence and defamation. The fact that Das admitted the graphic was AI-generated but refused to apologise raises questions about the liability of individuals who publish AI-created content that defames others. Legal experts note that, under current defamation law, the defence of “I didn’t create it, only shared it” may not absolve the publisher—especially when the publisher is an organisation with a public platform.
Bhatia, in a post on X, made clear that he would not engage in a social media trial. “When accusations cross their limits, then the law draws its line. Tomorrow, this defamation case will be listed for hearing before the Hon'ble . No social media trial. No war of statements. Only facts, evidence, and the ,” he wrote.
The suit demands Rs 2 crore in damages, reflecting the seriousness with which the plaintiff views the attack on his reputation. It also seeks a to prevent CJP and its leaders from creating or circulating further defamatory material against him.
Background: The ’s Rise
CJP began as an online campaign before gaining visibility through protests, most notably over the NEET paper leak issue at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Its leadership has often styled itself as anti-establishment and unaffiliated with mainstream political parties. However, the alleges that the group’s modus operandi involves “systematically utilising social-media platforms to comment upon, criticise and attack the judiciary in a manner that goes beyond on specific orders and enters the realm of broad .”
The plea claims that CJP leaders have drawn comparisons and analogies of a highly pejorative nature involving the judiciary, including content that seeks to equate or juxtapose judicial processes with references calculated to provoke public outrage and diminish institutional respect.
What Lies Ahead
The is set to hear the matter on Wednesday, with Bhatia’s legal team expected to argue for an urgent injunction to prevent further propagation of the alleged defamatory material. The defendants—Saurav Das, Abhijit Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka, and the CJP—are yet to file their responses. Given the high profile of the plaintiff and the novel use of AI-generated content, the case is being closely watched by the legal fraternity.
For legal professionals, the case raises important questions about the adequacy of existing defamation laws to address the challenges posed by generative AI. It also underscores the growing trend of litigants turning to civil defamation suits to counter online misinformation, particularly when attributable to organised groups rather than anonymous trolls.
The outcome could set a precedent for how courts treat AI-generated content that is deliberately used to mislead and malign. As Bhatia stated, “the final nail will be hammered into the coffin of lies.” Whether that nail will be driven by the court remains to be seen.
