Patna High Court Orders Takedown of AI-Generated Modi Video, Citing Fundamental Rights to Privacy and Dignity

Patna, India – In a significant ruling at the intersection of technology, politics, and fundamental rights, the Patna High Court on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, directed the Indian National Congress and several social media intermediaries to remove an AI-generated video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his late mother, Heeraben Modi. The interim order, passed by a bench of Acting Chief Justice P.B. Baijanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, underscores the judiciary's increasing role in navigating the complex legal challenges posed by deepfake technology, particularly in the highly charged political landscape.

The court's directive, which mandates the immediate cessation of the video's circulation, is grounded in the constitutional principles of privacy and dignity, signaling a critical precedent for how such content will be treated under Indian law.

The Legal Challenge: A Public Interest Litigation

The matter came before the High Court via a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner Vivekanand Singh. The petition challenged a 36-second AI-generated video, posted by the Bihar Congress on its X handle on September 10, which depicted Prime Minister Modi in a dream sequence where his late mother appears to criticize his political policies.

The petitioner argued that the video was "disgusting, disgraceful, distasteful and dishonouring," infringing upon the dignity of not only a sitting Prime Minister but also his deceased mother. Senior Advocate Santosh Kumar, representing the petitioner, argued forcefully that the "worst kind of calumny is inflicted upon the Prime Minister." He also highlighted the sensitive timing of the video's release, noting it coincided with the Hindu period of Pitru Paksha , a time for honouring ancestors, during which the Prime Minister was reportedly performing rituals for his late mother.

The PIL named the Union Government, the Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi as respondents, submitting that the video was posted with Gandhi's knowledge.

The Court's Rationale: Upholding Privacy and Dignity

In its interim order, the High Court prioritized the protection of fundamental rights over political expression in this specific context. The bench explicitly cited landmark Supreme Court judgments to fortify its reasoning, including K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India , which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right, alongside the NALSA Foundation and Subramanian Swamy cases, which speak to the broader contours of personal dignity.

"The court found merit in the petitioner's plea," stated Ratnesh Khushwaha, counsel for the Centre. He added, "The court appreciated the petitioners plea and directed the respondents Congress party to stop all the live streaming of that...derogatory video."

The bench directed respondents 6-8—Meta Platforms (Facebook), Google India (YouTube), and X (Twitter) India—to halt circulation of the video. The order reads: "To avoid further damages, if any, respondents 6-8 are hereby directed not to circulate the subject video clipping from here afterwards until further orders to be passed by this Court." This direct instruction to the intermediaries highlights their crucial role and potential liability in the dissemination of such content.

Broader Legal and Political Context

This judicial intervention does not exist in a vacuum. The controversy surrounding the video is multifaceted, involving parallel criminal proceedings and potential ramifications under election law.

1. Criminal Proceedings: Prior to the High Court's order, on September 13, the Delhi Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the Congress and its IT cell based on a complaint by Sanket Gupta, convenor of the BJP Delhi Election Cell. The FIR invokes multiple sections of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including provisions related to defamation and public mischief, indicating that the matter is being pursued on a criminal front as well.

2. Election Law Implications: The PIL sought to have the video declared a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section deals with the publication of false statements about the personal character or conduct of a candidate to prejudice their election prospects. With high-stakes Bihar Assembly elections scheduled for later in the year, the petitioner argued that such "malicious propaganda" could "vitiate free and fair elections." The court has issued a notice to the ECI, whose counsel, Siddharth Prasad, confirmed that the court had ordered the video's withdrawal.

3. The Rise of AI in Political Discourse: The case represents a flashpoint in the growing use of AI and deepfake technology in political campaigns. While the video was marked "AI GENERATED," the court's intervention suggests that such a disclaimer may not be a sufficient defense against claims of defamation or violation of dignity, especially when involving deceased relatives of public figures. The Congress party has maintained that "no disrespect was shown towards PM Modi or his late mother," but the court's prima facie finding points in a different direction.

Legal Implications for Practitioners and Platforms

The Patna High Court's interim order carries significant weight and presents several key takeaways for the legal community:

• Posthumous Dignity: The case strongly suggests that the right to dignity extends to deceased individuals, particularly when their likeness is used in a manner that could cause distress to their living relatives and be seen as a violation of their memory. This expands the jurisprudential conversation around posthumous rights in the digital age.
• Balancing Free Speech and Privacy: The ruling navigates the delicate balance between the freedom of political speech and the fundamental right to privacy and dignity. It indicates that while political criticism is permissible, the use of a public figure's deceased parent in a fictional, critical portrayal may cross a legal and ethical line.
• Intermediary Accountability: By issuing direct orders to social media giants, the court is reinforcing the expectation that these platforms act swiftly to remove content deemed violative of fundamental rights by a judicial body. This continues the trend of Indian courts holding intermediaries accountable for content on their platforms, an area of law under constant evolution.
• A Precedent for Deepfake Regulation: As AI technology becomes more accessible, this case will likely serve as a crucial reference point for future litigation involving deepfakes. It establishes that courts are willing to intervene pre-emptively to prevent the "further damages" caused by viral digital content, rather than waiting for the conclusion of a lengthy trial.

The court has issued notices to all respondents, including Rahul Gandhi and the social media platforms, and has scheduled the next hearing in two weeks, allowing them time to file their responses. The final judgment will be eagerly awaited as it could set a binding precedent on the permissible use of AI in political messaging and the legal remedies available to those targeted by such technology.