Supreme Court Scrutinizes BJP-Assam's AI Video in Hate Speech PIL, Raising Questions on AI's Role in Elections

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice on an application demanding the removal of an AI-generated video posted by the Assam unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The video, which allegedly depicts a hostile takeover of the state by Muslims if the party loses power, brings the escalating issue of AI-generated political propaganda under judicial scrutiny within an ongoing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against hate speech.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is set to hear the matter on October 28. The notice was issued after Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing the applicants, presented arguments highlighting the video's inflammatory nature and its potential to disrupt communal harmony ahead of upcoming elections. This development marks a critical juncture where the judiciary must grapple with the intersection of technology, political speech, and constitutional values.

The Contested Content: An AI-Generated Narrative of Fear

The application was filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash within their existing PIL, Qurban Ali Versus Union of India and others., W.P.(C) No. 24/2022 , which has been instrumental in compelling state action against hate crimes. The application specifically targets an AI-generated video circulated on the social media platform 'X' by the official handle of BJP-Assam on September 15, 2025.

According to the applicants, the video propagates a "grossly false narrative" that Assam would fall under Muslim control should the BJP not remain in power. The plea provides a detailed description of the video's content, which it claims vilifies and demonizes the Muslim community. It states:

"The video...shows visibly Muslim people (wearing skullcaps and burqas) taking over tea estates, Guwahati airport, Guwahati Accolad, Assam Ranghar, Guwahati Stadium, Rang Ghar, Guwahati town. The video further shows illegal migrants who are visibly Muslim coming into Assam; Muslims acquiring government land; and finally, that the State has 90% Muslim population."

The applicants argue that this portrayal is a deliberate attempt to stoke communal fears for electoral gain. "The broad message of the video is that the worst fate that a State can be met with is its takeover by Muslims, and on the strength of the assurance that if the BJP is voted into power the State would be saved from the same, support is being sought," the application avers.

The prayer before the court is direct: to order the takedown of the video to prevent the spread of communal enmity and unrest.

Legal Framework: Contempt and the Mandate for Suo Motu Action

The legal foundation of the application rests firmly on the Supreme Court's prior landmark directives in the same PIL. The Court has repeatedly ordered all States and Union Territories to register First Information Reports (FIRs) suo motu against any instances of hate speech without waiting for a formal complaint.

During the hearing, Advocate Pasha forcefully reminded the bench of this existing mandate. "A video has just been posted as part of upcoming election...it shows that in case a certain political party does not come to power, a certain community will take over," he argued. Crucially, he connected the alleged inaction of law enforcement to the Court's previous warnings: "[as per Court's directions] FIR should be suo motu lodged...if FIR is not lodged, contempt action is to be undertaken."

The Court’s standing order is unequivocal: action must be taken irrespective of the speaker's religion or political affiliation. Any "hesitation to act" as per these directions, the Court has warned, would be viewed as contempt. This application, therefore, serves as a direct test of the efficacy of the Court’s orders and the compliance of state authorities. By bringing this specific video to the Court’s attention, the applicants are not only seeking removal of the content but are also implicitly questioning why law enforcement agencies in Assam did not act proactively as directed.

Analysis: Navigating the Uncharted Waters of AI in Political Discourse

This case transcends a typical hate speech complaint due to the involvement of artificial intelligence. The use of AI to generate political messaging presents novel and complex challenges for the legal and regulatory framework.

• Plausible Deniability and Amplified Disinformation: AI can create hyper-realistic or stylized content that blurs the line between reality and fabrication. This allows political actors to introduce dangerous narratives while maintaining a veneer of creative license. The speed and scale at which such content can be produced and disseminated far exceed traditional forms of propaganda, making manual moderation and fact-checking increasingly difficult.

• Attribution and Accountability: While the video in question was posted from an official party handle, establishing the original creator of AI content can be complex. This raises critical questions of accountability. Is the party unit solely responsible, or does liability extend to the individuals who commissioned or created the video, and even the platforms that host it?

• Testing the Adequacy of Existing Laws: The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains provisions like Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and Section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief). The Representation of the People Act, 1951, also prohibits appeals to religion for votes. The Court will have to determine how these long-standing provisions apply to technologically sophisticated, AI-generated content designed for mass digital consumption.

• The "Takedown" Remedy: The applicants' prayer for a "take-down" order is a pre-emptive measure to curb the harm caused by the video's circulation. This brings into focus the balance between freedom of expression and the state's duty to prevent incitement to hatred and violence. Courts are generally cautious about ordering prior restraint on speech, but the alleged potential for immediate communal disharmony could weigh heavily in the bench's considerations.

For the legal community, this case is a harbinger of the future of litigation concerning election law and free speech. As AI tools become more accessible, lawyers, judges, and election officials will increasingly be called upon to adjudicate disputes over deepfakes, AI-generated propaganda, and digitally manipulated media. The Supreme Court's observations and eventual ruling in this matter could lay the groundwork for a new jurisprudence governing the acceptable use of artificial intelligence in the political arena.

The listing of the case on October 28 will be keenly watched, as the Court's stance could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of digital political campaigns and the ongoing fight against hate speech in India.