Patna High Court Threatens Meta with Contempt Over Failure to Remove AI-Generated Modi Video

Patna, India – The Patna High Court has issued a stern warning to Meta Platforms Inc., threatening to initiate suo motu contempt of court proceedings if the social media giant fails to comply with a previous order mandating the removal of an AI-generated video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his late mother, Heeraben Modi. The case highlights the escalating judicial scrutiny over intermediary liability, the enforcement of takedown orders, and the nascent legal challenges posed by deepfake technology.

A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, delivered the ultimatum during a hearing on October 15. The court's admonition came in response to submissions that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, had not adhered to an interim injunction passed on September 17, which directed intermediaries to block the circulation of the contentious video.

"If respondent no. 6 (Meta) is violating the orders of this Court, he shall rectify himself, failing which suo motu contempt action would be initiated," the Bench observed, making its position unequivocally clear.

Appearing for Meta via video conference, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi assured the court of the company's intent to comply. He stated that the platform would act swiftly once the specific URL of the offending content was provided.

"Once the URL is furnished to the 6th respondent, it will be removed within 48 hours," Rohatgi submitted. The Bench formally recorded this assurance in its order.

---

Background of the PIL and the Core Legal Arguments

The matter originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Vivekanand Singh, who sought judicial intervention to remove the video, which was reportedly first shared by the Bihar Congress on its social media channels. The petitioner characterized the AI-generated content as "disgusting, disgraceful, distasteful and dishonouring."

The video allegedly depicts a dream sequence in which the Prime Minister's late mother reprimands him for his policies. The core of the petitioner's argument, represented by Senior Advocate Santosh Kumar, is that the video infringes upon the dignity of a deceased person and, by extension, causes distress to her living relative, the Prime Minister. This argument anchors the dispute firmly in the realm of fundamental rights, particularly the right to dignity and privacy.

In its initial September 17 order, the High Court had leaned on landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence to justify the injunction. It cited foundational cases such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India , which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and NALSA Foundation v. Union of India , which affirmed the intrinsic value of personal dignity. By invoking these precedents, the court signaled that the protection of these rights extends into the digital sphere and can be invoked to restrain the circulation of offensive or harmful content, even when it involves public figures.

Intermediary Liability and Procedural Hurdles

The October 15 hearing brought the critical issue of intermediary liability to the forefront. Senior Advocate Santosh Kumar argued that despite the court's clear injunction, the video remained accessible on Meta's platforms, constituting a direct violation of the judicial order.

Meta's response, delivered by Mukul Rohatgi, reflects the standard operational and legal posture of large social media intermediaries. Platforms often argue that they cannot proactively police the billions of pieces of content uploaded daily and require specific, actionable takedown requests—typically in the form of URLs—to locate and remove illicit material. This "safe harbour" principle, enshrined in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, generally protects intermediaries from liability for third-party content, provided they adhere to due diligence requirements, including compliance with court orders upon receiving "actual knowledge."

Rohatgi's assurance to remove the content within 48 hours of receiving the URL is a commitment to this procedural compliance. The court acknowledged this by directing the petitioner to furnish the URL codes of the video to Meta, as well as to Google and X (formerly Twitter), within two days to ensure "effective compliance" with the September 17 order. The petitioner was also instructed to provide all respondents' counsel with relevant documents, including a pen drive containing the video.

Legal Implications: Contempt, Deepfakes, and the Dignity of the Deceased

This case serves as a crucial test for the Indian judiciary's ability to enforce its orders against global technology corporations. The court's threat of suo motu contempt is a significant escalation, demonstrating a low tolerance for perceived non-compliance and asserting its authority to compel action from powerful digital platforms. For legal practitioners, this signals that courts may be increasingly willing to wield their contempt powers to ensure digital-age injunctions are not rendered toothless.

Furthermore, the subject matter—an AI-generated video or "deepfake"—places the litigation at the cutting edge of technology law. As generative AI becomes more sophisticated and accessible, the potential for creating convincing but false audio-visual content for political satire, misinformation, or defamation grows exponentially. This case forces a direct confrontation with the legal status of such content. The court's preliminary actions suggest an inclination to treat manipulated media that attacks personal dignity as a violation of fundamental rights, rather than protected speech, especially when it involves the likeness of a deceased individual who cannot defend their own reputation.

The extension of the right to dignity to the Prime Minister's late mother is another legally significant facet. While defamation laws traditionally protect the living, the constitutional concept of dignity, as interpreted in this PIL, appears to offer a broader basis for relatives to seek redress against content that dishonours their deceased family members. This could have far-reaching implications for how courts balance freedom of expression with the posthumous right to dignity and the privacy of grieving families.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for November 12, by which time the respondents are permitted to file objections to both the interlocutory applications and the main petition. The legal community will be watching closely to see how the court balances the fundamental rights at stake, navigates the complexities of intermediary liability, and sets a precedent for handling the burgeoning challenge of AI-generated deepfakes in the public and political discourse.