The Delhi High Court on Friday, September 25, 2026, agreed to urgently hear a woman's plea seeking the removal of an alleged AI-generated and morphed image showing her alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The plea names Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka and Ratna Singh as respondents.The case relates to an alleged image that the woman says was created using her photograph without permission and circulated online following CJP protests at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.Key HighlightsDelhi High Court agreed to urgently hear the woman's plea on September 25.The plea names CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka and Ratna Singh.The woman alleges that her photograph was used to create an AI-morphed image with PM Narendra Modi.She has sought removal and blocking of the alleged deepfake content.Delhi Police has registered an FIR in connection with the complaint.The allegations are part of the complaint and have not been established by the court.What Is the Delhi High Court Case About?According to the petition, the woman alleges that her personal photograph was obtained without her consent and manipulated using AI-based face-swapping technology. She has alleged that the resulting image was displayed during a CJP protest at Jantar Mantar and later circulated on social media.The plea seeks directions to remove the alleged fabricated images from social media platforms and other online sources. The petitioner has also sought action to block the links through which the material was allegedly being circulated.The Delhi High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia allowed the matter to be listed urgently on Friday.CJP Leaders Named in the PleaThe latest reports identify four CJP leaders as respondents in the petition: founder Abhijeet Dipke, spokespersons Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, and Ratna Singh.The petitioner's allegations concern the alleged creation and circulation of the morphed material. The court hearing will determine the legal issues raised by the petitioner; the allegations themselves should not be treated as established findings against the named individuals.FIR Registered in the CaseA separate police case has also been registered following the woman's complaint.Hindustan Times reported that an FIR was registered at the Cyber Police Station in New Delhi district under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. Police said the woman submitted photographs and videos as evidence and that the matter was being investigated.The FIR was reportedly registered against unknown persons, while the woman named several CJP functionaries in her complaint.What Has the Woman Sought?The petition seeks immediate removal or blocking of the alleged AI-generated images and the links through which they were allegedly circulated.The petitioner has also raised concerns about the alleged use of her personal photograph without consent. Her allegations include claims that the material was displayed during a protest and subsequently shared online.The court's consideration of the matter comes amid wider legal questions around the use of AI-generated images, social-media circulation and the rights of individuals whose photographs are allegedly manipulated without consent.Earlier Delhi HC Case Involving CJP PostsThe latest case comes weeks after another Delhi High Court matter involving CJP leaders and social-media posts.On September 10, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka agreed to take down AI-generated posts concerning BJP leader and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia. The court also allowed Bhatia to approach Meta and X regarding identical posts appearing in the future.That case and the present petition are separate legal proceedings.What Happens Next?The Delhi High Court's urgent listing means the petition will now be considered in court. The allegations concerning the alleged morphed image remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings.The police investigation and the court proceedings will determine the facts and any legal responsibility arising from the alleged circulation of the content.For social-media users, the case also highlights the legal and personal consequences that can arise from creating or circulating manipulated images of individuals without their consent.
