A day after agreeing to hear it urgently, the Delhi High Court has acted on a woman’s plea over an alleged deepfake image circulated with the Prime Minister’s photograph. It granted her police protection, through a mechanism that keeps her address confidential, and directed Meta to take the content down within 24 hours. The allegations against the four named Cockroach Janta Party leaders, to whom notice was issued, remain untested.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted police protection to a woman who has alleged that leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) posted and circulated an alleged deepfake image of her alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi on social media, following which she says she received threats [X v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others].
Justice Girish Kathpalia, issuing notice to the four CJP leaders named as respondents, also directed Meta Platforms to remove access to the “objectionable content” within 24 hours, and ordered the police to file a status report within a week. The petitioner is anonymised as “X”, and her name stood redacted in the copy supplied to the Court.
The protection order
Noting that the petitioner had, correctly, not disclosed her residential address in the petition, the Court devised a mechanism to protect her while securing her safety:
“…in order to ensure that she is provided complete police protection, it is directed that today itself she will disclose her exact residence address to IO present in Court. And IO shall forthwith transmit address to SHO of the area in which petitioner resides. IO shall also transmit a copy of this order to the said SHO who is directed to ensure complete police protection to petitioner in all possible and practical manner.”
Explaining the approach, the Court observed, “Looking into sensitivity, we should not make the lady run from one place to another,” and directed that her address not be disclosed in the petition but conveyed to the SHO, who would ensure her protection.
Takedown and the civil-jurisdiction question
The Court directed Meta to remove the impugned content within 24 hours, and directed the Registry to redact all the impugned web links from the petition and its annexures, while requiring the petitioner to hand over the concerned pictures and videos, in electronic form with the web links, to the investigating agency. The Court observed that the petitioner has a right to claim compensation from the organisers of the demonstration, and clarified that the filing of the petition would not preclude her from seeking any other relief available in law.
On the broader relief of tracing and purging the content across platforms, the Court orally observed that the issue of takedown would have to be taken up by the bench exercising civil jurisdiction, but that, given the sensitivity, it would grant police protection for the present rather than send the petitioner from one forum to another. Recording the Additional Standing Counsel’s statement that an FIR had been registered the previous day and that action would be taken expeditiously, the Court noted it found prima facie force in the argument that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 draws no rigid distinction between a civil and a criminal writ.
‘Also about the Prime Minister’
During the hearing, the Court underlined the gravity of the matter, observing that it concerned not only the petitioner but also the office it touched:
“It is not just her face. Of course she is victim… In such matters I would not have entertained because you have alternative remedies available but it is not just a matter of the lady but also about the Prime Minister of the country. If they are not sensitive, I will ensure they become sensitive. And I believe action will be taken.”
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Umesh Sharma, submitted that her photographs had been morphed and uploaded online and that the police had not acted despite the FIR, adding, “They should first take down entire content. And I am receiving threats.” The content of the impugned material is not described here.
The allegations
According to the plea, the petitioner’s personal photograph was harvested without authorisation and, using AI face-swapping tools, her face was morphed onto a compromising image alongside the Prime Minister; the resulting content, she alleges, was printed on banners paraded at a demonstration organised by the respondents, and uploaded, with derogatory slogans, to social media and pornographic websites, exposing her to threats and trauma. She contends that, despite an FIR, the content remained accessible because statutory takedown directions had not been issued.
These are the allegations of the petitioner. Notice has been issued to the four CJP leaders named as respondents, and no findings have been recorded against them; they are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why it matters
The order shows a court responding, on an urgent basis, to the distinctive harm of non-consensual deepfake sexual imagery: rather than confine the victim to the theoretically “correct” forum, it granted immediate police protection and a time-bound takedown direction, while flagging that the wider tracing-and-removal relief belongs to the civil jurisdiction. For a victim facing viral, sexually explicit morphed content and consequent threats, the speed of protection and removal is often what matters most, and the Court’s willingness to craft an interim, victim-protective mechanism reflects that.
The address-confidentiality mechanism is a notable, practical safeguard. By allowing the petitioner to withhold her address from the petition and route it only to the SHO, the Court protected her privacy, itself in issue in a case about the misuse of her image, while enabling effective protection. The directions to redact the web links from the record, and to have the electronic material handed to the investigators, similarly balance the need to preserve evidence against the risk of the record itself becoming a vector for further circulation.
Nothing has been finally decided. The Court has issued notice, granted interim protection and directed a takedown and a status report; it has made no finding on the allegations, which remain untested, and the persons named are presumed innocent. The takedown of content across platforms, and the investigation into who created and circulated the material, will proceed, with the police status report due within a week and the wider reliefs to be pursued before the appropriate forum. The identity of the woman is protected by law and has not been disclosed.
Case Title: X v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Appearance: Advocate Umesh Sharma for the petitioner; Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi Police.
Status: Police protection granted through a confidential-address mechanism; notice issued to the four CJP leaders; Meta directed to remove the content within 24 hours; police status report due in a week; web links to be redacted from the record. Allegations untested; respondents presumed innocent; petitioner’s identity protected.
This report concerns a sensitive matter involving alleged image-based sexual abuse; the woman’s identity is protected by law and has not been disclosed, and no related content has been described or reproduced. If you or someone you know needs support, the women’s helpline 181 and the police helpline 112 can direct you to assistance.