Delhi High Court orders removal of six posts about Gupta

The Delhi High Court directed the removal of six posts identified in the case: five published on X and one on Facebook.[1] Justice Manoj Jain issued the takedown order on November 6, 2026.[2] The court directed defendants 3, 4 and 5 to remove the listed URLs forthwith.[2] The order therefore identifies specific URLs for removal; Gupta’s separate request for a permanent injunction is a broader form of relief that remains part of the suit.[2] The defendants did not appear despite advance notice.[2]

The court record says the material portrayed Gupta as a liquor vendor, hawker and delivery agent, and as the head of a fictitious scheme.[2] Gupta’s filing alleged that one video showed her serving drinks to men at night, amid a brawl and with a romantic soundtrack.[2] Her filing also said the challenged posts and videos appeared on AAP’s official and verified accounts.[2] A video posted on X on November 4, 2026, had about 75,000 views, 1,600 likes and 470 reposts when its screenshot was captured.[2] That figure is a snapshot from the screenshot, not a measure of the posts’ total reach.[2]

The court described the posts as defamatory and offensive, and as an attack on the dignity of a woman holding constitutional authority.[2] It said the AI-assisted portrayal of Gupta could not be considered permissible political satire.[2] The court also drew a distinction between scrutiny of public officials and personal dignity: holding public office invites greater scrutiny, it said, but does not mean a person’s dignity can be compromised.[2] It further said responsibility for creating and publishing AI-assisted depictions remains with humans.[2] The ruling treats the use of AI as no substitute for human accountability.[2]

Gupta sought a permanent injunction barring the defendants from publishing, circulating or disseminating AI-generated deepfake content on social media, and also sought damages.[2] The court listed the case for further consideration on December 4, 2026.[2] The record therefore distinguishes the immediate direction concerning listed URLs from the wider remedies Gupta requested.[2] The court said it has a judicial duty to assess whether AI use infringes a person’s right to dignity until appropriate legislation regulates such content.[2] It also noted that content travels at lightning speed through social media.[2]