Gaurav Bhatia, a senior advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, filed a ₹2-crore defamation lawsuit against the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), its founder Abhijeet Dipke, spokesperson Saurav Das and co-convenor Ashutosh Ranka in the Delhi High Court. The case concerned an AI-generated social media post that attributed defamatory remarks to Bhatia. The bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the case on 10th September (Thursday).
“There are different ways of protesting. Do you really need to go to this? You are youngsters. You have your anxiety. That’s understandable, but saying something like this or putting something like this might not be correct. We don’t want to pass an order that you take it down. You may want to do it yourself,” the court pronounced. The court observed that “attacking like this without verifying is not correct.” Afterwards, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka assured that they will delete the posts against Bhatia.
According to Saurav’s attorney, he will remove the objectionable tweets. Ashutosh’s counsel contended that the tweet had already been taken down and then stated that the reposted tweet will also be removed. Furthermore, the court asked CJP and Abhijeet to present their reply. Their lawyer alleged that nothing was brought forth against them in the case, but Bhatia took issue with this submission.
The court also summoned Das, Ranka and Dipke, and they were instructed to provide their responses. It mentioned that the posts will be taken down within 24 hours of their attorneys agreeing to do the same. “For the time being, we want to make sure there is no acrimony on this issue. We are not imputing anything against anyone right now,” the court stated.
Additionally, the court mandated that social media sites Meta and X remove identical posts made by Das and Ranka going forward if Bhatia flags them. “Plaintiff is permitted to approach X and Meta in case similar or identical posts or tweets appear. Platforms may consider the same and take appropriate action. In case there is an impediment, both platforms are at liberty to tell Plaintiff who may take appropriate steps,” it declared.
On the other hand, Bhatia stated that he wanted to pursue damages when he was questioned if the parties might be sent to mediation to settle the conflict. He asserted that posts were made even after today’s hearing, despite the court’s statement that the contested tweets were already being removed. “When my lords said they should take it down, they posted a tweet within 2 minutes. Please understand, more than a million, 2 million people are watching the tweets,” he argued.
Das initially alleged that he removed the remark, to which the court countered, “But you put something else also. You have a right to express, but sometimes expressions need to be put in a more articulate manner. So that intention goes in the right way. We understand because we have gone through that age.”
The case was registered over a post made by Das and Ranka on X (previously Twitter) on 5th September, following the arrest of Swatantra Bhardwaj, who is charged with beating a teenage CJP protester. According to the lawsuit, Bhatia was accused of describing Bhardwaj as “dimagi naxali” and “jaatiwaadi” in an AI-generated tweet.
“This is a case of aggravated defamation. These posts can’t be on the internet because they have millions of followers. It is causing damage to the image of the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave them a chance,” he mentioned before the court. He pointed out that neither Das nor Ranka just criticised, commented upon or disagreed with any of his actual statements but misrepresented to the public that he uttered comments which he never did.
The lawsuit added, “The impugned material was accompanied and/or associated with the photograph of the Plaintiff followed by a false/fake statement, thereby creating an unmistakable and false nexus between the Plaintiff and the words/content disseminated by the said defendants.”
The CJP and its leaders were further charged with continuously engaging in the habit of making public remarks and publications that are intended to diminish the authority, dignity and institutional standing of the judiciary.
