Gujarat court orders Jairam Ramesh, Supriya Shrinate and others to take down Modi-Adani deepfake

Ahmedabad: A court in Ahmedabad in Gujarat has directed the Congress and four of its leaders to remove a deep fake video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani from social media platforms.

While hearing a civil defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited, the court of Additional Civil Judge Shrikant Sharma on Thursday directed Congress and its leaders Jairam Ramesh, Supriya Shrinate, Pawan Khera and Uday Bhanu Chib to remove the deep fake video from all social media platforms.

The video, posted on Congress' X handle on December 17, showed a conversation between Modi and Adani with the caption 'Modi-Adani Bhai Bhai, Desh Bechkar Khai Malai' (Modi and Adani are like brothers, selling off the country and enjoying the spoils).

The court directed that the video be removed within 48 hours from the date of the order and until the next date of the hearing on December 29. In case they failed to take down the video, the court directed X Corp and Google, which have also been made respondents in the case, to take down the video within 72 hours.

"In the event of non-compliance by the defendants, liberty is granted to the plaintiff to approach the concerned intermediary in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 for appropriate takedown action," stated the order.

The court also issued urgent show cause notices to the defendants returnable on December 29.

The plea by Adani Enterprises Limited stated that the Congress and its four leaders uploaded, circulated and broadcast on various social media channels, online platforms, and digital communication mediums a deep fake video containing defamatory allegations.

It sought the court's direction for immediate removal of the defamatory videos, posts and digital content from websites, channels, platforms and social media handles of the defendants, and restraining them from further circulation, publication or republication of any similar defamatory material pending hearing of the application.

The plea said that through the video and post, the defendants "imputed to the plaintiff allegations of criminal activity, corruption, land grabbing, misuse of political influence, harassment of private citizens, illegal acquisition of agricultural land, manipulation of public authorities, and engagement with criminal elements".

It asserted that the imputations are "wholly false, fabricated, baseless and actuated by malice".

Expressions of "white-collar criminal", "land mafia" and "politically connected offender" used against the plaintiff are per se defamatory and have been circulated to the general public without any factual basis, causing substantial injury to its reputation, credibility, and public image painstakingly built over decades, the plea said.

Furthermore, the content is not only defamatory but also violative of the fundamental right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution, it said.

The court observed that the defendants circulated the video containing "prima facie defamatory statements," showing that the actions on social media are likely to harm the plaintiff's reputation and adversely affect his standing in society.

The court noted that the plaintiff is a diversified group in India comprising 10 publicly traded companies and has pan India presence, and any defamatory content or negative posts published on social media platforms targeting it are likely to tarnish its reputation, undermine goodwill, and cause significant harm to its public image in the eyes of society at large.

"In considering this application, this court must keep in view that malicious publications intended to damage the plaintiff's reputation may cause irreversible harm, as reputation, once lost, cannot be restored. The plaintiff would suffer greater hardship from continued circulation of such content than the defendants would from delay," the court said in its order.

Therefore, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the potential for rapid and viral dissemination on social media, the grant of an ad-interim injunction is warranted, the court order said.