The Delhi High Court on Friday, September 25, directed the Delhi Police to provide protection to a woman who alleged that leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) circulated an obscene, morphed image depicting her alongside PM Modi, following which she began receiving threats.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, while issuing notice to CJP leaders Saurav Das, Abhijit Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Ratna Singh, directed the investigating officer to obtain the woman’s exact residential address and immediately communicate it to the SHO of the police station concerned. The SHO was directed to ensure the woman’s protection “in all possible and practical manner.”
The court’s intervention came a day after Delhi Police registered an FIR following the woman’s complaint. She has alleged that her photograph was taken without consent and manipulated using AI face-swapping technology to create a vulgar and compromising image featuring her alongside the Prime Minister.
The allegations have not been adjudicated upon and the respondents have yet to establish their position before the court. Reports on the case say the FIR was registered at the Cyber Police Station in New Delhi on September 24.
Court directs Meta to remove objectionable content
The High Court also issued notice to Meta Platforms and directed the company to immediately remove access to the “objectionable content” from the social media platforms under its control within 24 hours.
The woman has alleged that the images were not merely circulated online but were also displayed on physical banners during a CJP demonstration. According to her plea, videos of the display were subsequently uploaded to social media.
She further stated that the morphed images were uploaded to other websites, including pornographic platforms, and claimed that the circulation of the material had resulted in threats, including rape threats, as well as severe mental distress.
Earlier today, woman also posted about the alleged incident on X, tagging the Delhi Police, Home Minister Amit Shah and PM Modi.
In her post, she alleged that posters carrying her edited photograph had been displayed during the CJP protest and questioned why action had not been taken earlier. She also alleged that she had struggled for around two-and-a-half months to get an FIR registered and said that she was now suffering significant distress as a consequence.
मेरी फोटो एडिट कर के उसके पोस्टर @CJP_for_India वाले लहरा देते है उसके बाद FIR दर्ज करवाने के लिए धक्के खाने पड़ते है 2.5 महीने तक और इसके बाद जब FIR दर्ज हो जाए तो यह पोस्ट उड़वा देते है या अकाउंट ब्लॉक करवा देते है।🥹
— SanataniRiddhi (@Ridhu417Sharma) September 25, 2026
क्या 🪳🪳 जब पोस्टर लहरा रहे थे CJP प्रोटेस्ट के दौरान तब भी… pic.twitter.com/cJIXXNLMEe
Her plea seeks directions to the authorities to trace, block and remove the allegedly fabricated images and videos from social media platforms and other websites.
‘We should not make the lady run from one place to another’
Advocate Umesh Sharma, appearing for the woman, told the court that despite the registration of the FIR, the alleged content remained accessible and the petitioner was receiving threats.
“These pictures have been morphed and uploaded on the internet and the police has done nothing despite the FIR,” Sharma submitted, according to the court proceedings reported by LiveLaw.
He also urged the court to order the immediate removal of the material.
The court observed that questions concerning takedown of online content ordinarily fall within the civil jurisdiction. However, given the sensitivity of the allegations and the alleged threat to the woman’s safety, Justice Kathpalia indicated that she should not be forced to approach multiple forums for immediate protection.
“This relief as I said should have gone to civil bench. But looking into sensitivity, we should not make the lady run from one place to another,” the court orally observed.
The judge further directed that the woman’s residential address should not be disclosed in the court papers.
Court says woman may seek compensation
The High Court also observed that the petitioner would have the right to seek compensation from the organisers of the demonstration. It clarified that the filing of the present petition would not prevent her from pursuing any other remedy available to her under law.
The court directed the Delhi Police to submit a status report within one week setting out the precise action taken in the matter.
It also ordered the Registry to redact the impugned web links from the petition and its annexures. At the same time, the woman was directed to provide the investigating agency with electronic copies of the disputed photographs and videos, along with the relevant web links.
Woman alleges ‘coordinated cyber-assault’
In her petition, the woman has described the alleged incident as a coordinated cyber-assault and an attempt at public character assassination through deepfake technology.
According to the plea, the accused allegedly obtained one of her personal photographs and used AI-based face-swapping tools to superimpose her face onto an obscene image alongside the Prime Minister.
The petition alleges that physical banners carrying the morphed image were displayed during a CJP protest, while derogatory and sexually suggestive slogans were allegedly raised. It further claims that videos of the demonstration and the alleged images were subsequently circulated on Instagram and other social media platforms.
The woman has also alleged that the manipulated images were distributed on pornographic websites without her consent.
The petition argues that although an FIR had been registered, the authorities had not acted swiftly enough to issue takedown directions to prevent further circulation of the material.
‘It is not just a matter of the lady’
During the hearing, the court also took note of the fact that the allegedly morphed image purportedly featured the Prime Minister.
“It is not just a matter of the lady but also about the Prime Minister of the country,” the court orally remarked, while stressing the sensitivity of the matter.
The court said that if the authorities were not sufficiently sensitive to the issue, it would ensure that appropriate attention was given to it.
The judge also noted that the petitioner’s identity had been redacted in the copy placed before the court and directed that her residential details should remain protected.
