The Delhi High Court has directed Meta Platforms to remove within 24 hours objectionable social media content containing an alleged morphed image of a woman alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The order came after the woman approached the court alleging that her photograph had been digitally manipulated and circulated in connection with a protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.
Justice Girish Kathpalia heard the matter on September 25, 2026, and directed Meta to immediately take down the specific content identified in the petition. The court also directed the Delhi Police to provide complete protection to the woman after she claimed that she had received threats following the circulation of the alleged manipulated images.
The case involves allegations concerning the unauthorised use and digital manipulation of a woman's photograph. According to the petition, her photograph was allegedly obtained without her consent and manipulated using artificial intelligence based face swapping technology. The woman alleged that her face was superimposed onto an objectionable image featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The allegations also relate to the display and circulation of the alleged manipulated image during a CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. The petitioner claimed that the image was displayed publicly and subsequently circulated through social media platforms. She further alleged that the online circulation resulted in abusive messages and threats to her safety. These allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings.
The Delhi High Court issued notices to four CJP leaders named in the petition. They are Saurav Das, Abhijit Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Ratna Singh. The notices seek their responses to the allegations made by the petitioner. The issuance of a notice does not amount to a finding of liability or establish the allegations against the individuals named in the case.
The court also directed the investigating officer to obtain the woman's residential address and communicate the relevant details to the jurisdictional police station. The police were instructed to ensure her protection. The court further sought a status report from the police regarding the action taken in connection with the case.
According to reports, the Delhi Police had already registered an FIR following the woman's complaint. The FIR was registered at the Cyber Police Station in New Delhi under relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Police have been investigating the allegations and examining the material submitted by the complainant.
The court's directions also address the role of social media platforms in preventing the continued circulation of alleged manipulated content. Meta operates platforms including Facebook and Instagram, and the court directed the company to remove the specific objectionable material identified in the proceedings.
The order comes against a wider backdrop of concerns over AI generated and digitally manipulated images circulating online. Earlier in September, Alt News reported that Meta had removed several accounts and posts containing AI manipulated visuals connected with women at a CJP related protest after the material was flagged to the company. Meta reportedly confirmed that the flagged accounts and content violated its policies and had been removed.
The current case, however, concerns a specific image involving the woman who approached the Delhi High Court. The petitioner has sought removal of the alleged deepfake material from social media and other online sources. She has also sought protection from further circulation and alleged harassment.
During the hearing, Justice Girish Kathpalia described the matter as an extraordinary situation and noted that it concerned not only the woman but also the Prime Minister of India. The court also emphasised the need for a sensitive response from the police in dealing with the matter.
The court's observation does not establish the truth of the allegations made by the woman. The proceedings are focused on the relief sought by the petitioner, including removal of the alleged manipulated material and protection from threats. The respondents will have an opportunity to present their responses before the court.
The case also highlights the legal and practical difficulties involved when digitally manipulated or AI generated images are circulated through social media. Once such material is shared across multiple platforms, removing individual posts may not necessarily prevent further copies from appearing elsewhere. This has increased the importance of timely reporting, platform intervention and law enforcement action in cases involving alleged non-consensual manipulated images.
The Delhi High Court has therefore combined several directions in the case. Meta has been ordered to remove the specified objectionable content within 24 hours. The Delhi Police has been directed to provide protection to the woman. The investigating officer has also been asked to provide the necessary information to Meta to facilitate the removal process. The police have been asked to submit a status report on the investigation.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 14, 2026, according to reports. The court's subsequent proceedings are expected to clarify the responses of the CJP leaders and the status of the police investigation.
For readers, it is important to distinguish between allegations made in a court petition and findings established through judicial proceedings. At the current stage, the woman's claims regarding the creation and circulation of the alleged morphed image are allegations under investigation. The notices issued to the CJP leaders provide them an opportunity to respond, while the court's direction to Meta concerns the removal of the specified content.
The case has also brought attention to the growing use of AI based image manipulation and the challenges it creates for individuals whose photographs may be used without consent. The Delhi High Court's directions in this matter underline the importance of protecting individuals from alleged digital harassment while ensuring that the investigation and judicial process continue.
