Nitin Gadkari sues Meta, Google, X over AI deepfakes falsely linking him to ethanol policy gains

Gadkari says ethanol-blending policy not under his ministry, moves Bombay HC against AI deepfakes

Union minister Nitin Gadkari filed a civil suit seeking removal of AI-generated content. He claims deepfakes falsely link him and his family to ethanol program financial gains. The suit states the ethanol blending initiatives fall under another ministry's purview. Gadkari's office clarified the Union Cabinet made the blending decision. The Bombay High Court granted permission to file the suit against social media platforms. Union road transport and highways minister Nitin Gadkari has claimed in a proposed civil suit before the Bombay High Court that he had no role in the Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) programme or the E20 initiative, alleging that AI-generated deepfakes and manipulated online content falsely linked him and his family to financial gains from the policy. The Bombay High Court on Monday granted Gadkari permission to file the suit against Meta Platforms, Google LLC, X Corp and others, seeking the removal of allegedly "false, fabricated and defamatory" AI-generated videos and digital content. According to the proposed suit, the online posts and deepfakes falsely portray Gadkari as the driving force behind the ethanol-blending programme and allege that he and his family benefited financially from it. However, the suit states that the EBP programme and the E20 initiative fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, and not the ministry of road transport and highways headed by Gadkari. Officials from Gadkari's Nagpur office also told TOI that the decision to implement ethanol blending was taken by the Union Cabinet, and not by Gadkari's ministry. The suit further clarifies that it is not intended to stifle public discussion or criticism. "The purpose and object of filing the suit is not to curtail or prevent the public at large from engaging in discussion, debate, analysis or fair, just and bona fide criticism of any decision taken by the plaintiff himself or by his office," the suit says. Instead, Gadkari contends that the disputed content is "false, fabricated, malicious, abusive and grossly defamatory" and amounts to unauthorised use of his personality and publicity rights. His counsel, Sandeep Ladda, told the High Court that the allegedly defamatory content was accessible in Mumbai and elsewhere, warranting the court's permission to institute the suit. Justice Abhay Ahuja granted leave to file the civil proceedings. Gadkari is seeking permanent injunctions directing social media platforms and other defendants to remove, disable and stop the circulation of the allegedly defamatory AI-generated content. The suit is expected to come up for hearing on interim relief on Tuesday.

Bombay HC to hear Nitin Gadkari's plea against Meta, Google, X over AI deepfakes on August 5

The Bombay High Court is set to deliberate on Union Minister Nitin Gadkari's legal action against Meta, X Corp, and Google regarding defamatory deepfakes on August 5. The posts wrongfully connect him to financial advantages linked to the ethanol policy. Gadkari seeks a court order to prevent the spread of these damaging falsehoods, aiming to protect his integrity online. Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it would hear on August 5 Union Minister Nitin Gadkari's suit against Meta, X Corp, Google LLC and unknown persons for "defamatory" deepfakes and AI-generated posts uploaded against him over the ethanol policy. The bench of Justice Arif Doctor directed the Union minister's advocate Sandeep Ladda to serve the respondents copies of the civil suit, seeking a permanent injunction against the circulation of posts that allegedly tarnished his reputation. Gadkari, in his plea, sought an immediate takedown of all fake and fabricated content, along with an injunction against the circulation of such content. The senior BJP leader, who is serving as the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, has claimed that several fake, AI-generated and defamatory posts were available online regarding the ethanol-blended fuel issue. Unknown persons have uploaded and circulated posts and deepfake content falsely portraying him as being personally responsible for the programme, and alleging that he and his family have financially benefited from it, the plea stated. It alleged that this has caused irreparable harm to Gadkari's reputation and personality rights. The allegations made in the online posts are "false, malicious and grossly defamatory without an iota of doubt", the suit stated, adding that it is designed to create a misleading public perception against Gadkari. It stated that the ethanol-blending programme and E20 policy are administered by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, not him personally. While the plea clarified that no attempt was being made to stifle fair public debate or bona fide comments, it claimed that reckless and defamatory allegations had crossed the line of lawful speech.

Nitin Gadkari Sues Meta, X, Google Over AI Deepfakes Linking Him to E20 Policy

Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari has moved the Bombay High Court against Meta, X, and Google over AI-generated deepfakes and posts linking him and his family to the government's E20 ethanol-blending programme, according to a report by Bar and Bench. He seeks Rs 11 crore in damages and injunctions directing the platforms to take down the content, which he says alleges corruption around the policy. His case is that the material has crossed from political comment into targeted defamation and the unauthorised use of his identity. Justice Arif Doctor will hear the plea. Who has Gadkari sued? The civil suit names: * Meta (Facebook and Instagram), X (formerly Twitter), and Google/YouTube as platform defendants. * The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). * Unknown users described as "Ashok Kumar/John Doe", the standard formulation for blanket injunctions against anonymous entities, usually in intellectual property suits where tracking every infringer is impractical. Why does he say he is not responsible for E20? Gadkari's core claim is that the programme belongs to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), not his Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. His plea states: * The Ethanol Blending Programme (EBP) was introduced in 2003 to cut dependence on imported crude and promote indigenous energy, reaching 20% blending (E20) in 2025-26. * MoPNG conceived, administered, and implemented the programme. Gadkari says it is administratively and functionally distinct from his ministry. * He has never headed MoPNG or held any executive, statutory, financial, or policy-making power over the EBP. What is the allegation about his family? The suit challenges posts claiming his son, Nikhil Gadkari, profits from E20 through CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, an ethanol manufacturer. Gadkari denies the allegation, calling the insinuation of "undue pecuniary benefits" a "documentary falsity" contradicted by records showing that MoPNG runs the programme. What content has he flagged? The suit details 26 links containing face-swap videos, AI-generated images, and cartoons that use his name, face, voice, and mannerisms without consent. He claims these infringe his personality and publicity rights. That framing tracks a growing body of court jurisprudence. This month, the Bombay High Court granted actor Preity Zinta an ad-interim injunction against Google, X, Meta, and several AI platforms. The order directed roughly 275 URLs blocked within 72 hours and held that personality and publicity rights fall under Article 19(1)(a). Where does fair comment end? Gadkari's plea states that he does not seek to curb "fair, just and bona fide criticism" of policy or his public life. He contends that the challenged content is profane, abusive, and fabricated, placing it outside the bounds of legitimate comment or satire, regardless of whether the policy critique holds. Courts have flagged the same tension. In May, the Delhi High Court questioned a similar plea by MP Raghav Chadha, with Justice Prasad noting that criticism of political decisions does not automatically infringe personality rights.