Delhi High Court Hears Aniruddha Bapu’s Unusual Plea To Curb Devotional Deification Online

Delhi High Court Hears Aniruddha Bapu’s Unusual Plea To Curb Devotional Deification Online

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently heard what it termed a “very surprising suit” filed by Mumbai-based spiritual leader Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, popularly known as Aniruddha Bapu. Unlike conventional personality rights claims alleging defamation or commercial misuse, the suit seeks to restrain his own followers from portraying him as a deity in devotional and AI-generated content.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked during the hearing, “Faith moves mountains… This is something very surprising. You have come up with a very surprising suit.”

Factual Background

Dr. Joshi has approached the Court seeking removal of deepfake videos and AI-generated images that depict him alongside Hindu gods and goddesses or portray him as divine figures such as Narad Muni or Dattatreya. His counsel emphasised before the Court that, “I am not a god… I follow a path of the Divine. I am not the Divine.”

It was submitted that such portrayals are antithetical to his teachings and that he is embarrassed by content elevating him to divine status. The grievance is not rooted in reputational harm in the conventional sense but in protection of personal autonomy and the right not to be misrepresented—even by well-meaning devotees.

Procedural Background

The matter came up before the Delhi High Court in a personality rights suit seeking directions against intermediaries including social media platforms. The Court examined whether devotional content created by followers could amount to infringement of personality rights and whether intermediaries could be directed to take down such material. The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on April 29, 2026 and before the Court on August 25, 2026. Orders are awaited.

Issues

1. Whether devotional portrayals of a public figure as a deity can amount to violation of personality rights.

2. Whether AI-generated and deepfake content falsely attributing statements to the plaintiff warrants removal.

3. Whether intermediaries can be directed to take down content without precise identification of infringing URLs.

4. Whether the Delhi High Court is an appropriate forum given that the plaintiff and most followers are based in Maharashtra.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that deepfake videos and AI-generated imagery misrepresent him and falsely attribute statements to him. It was argued that such content violates his personality rights and personal autonomy. Counsel stressed that even if content is created out of devotion, the plaintiff does not consent to being portrayed as a divine figure.

The Court was told that these depictions are “antithetical to everything I stand for” and that future misuse through artificial intelligence poses a real apprehension of harm.

Counsel for Meta (Facebook) submitted that a majority of the posts—“80–90%”—consist of devotees praising the plaintiff, wishing him on his birthday, or treating him as a father figure or godman. It was argued that devotional content, absent egregious misuse, may not amount to infringement. The intermediary also contended that sweeping takedown directions cannot be issued without categorisation and identification of specific infringing material.

Google submitted that several YouTube links cited in the plaint were already unavailable and that entire channels cannot be removed unless specific infringing URLs are identified. It emphasised compliance through the mechanism under the Information Technology Rules upon receipt of precise information.

On the question of jurisdiction, the Court queried why the suit was instituted in Delhi when the plaintiff and his organisation are based in Maharashtra. It raised concerns relating to forum non conveniens. The plaintiff, however, argued that the cause of action is global in nature and that jurisdiction is maintainable under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the case presents a delicate balance between faith-based expression and individual autonomy. Justice Gedela noted:

“A person doesn't want his rights to be exploited in any manner. Somebody may be doing it out of devotion. But then he doesn't want it.” At the same time, the Court recognised the complexity of regulating devotional content online. It observed that while content may presently appear benign, artificial intelligence can potentially be misused in future:

“Today, it may be all positive. Tomorrow, you don't know. AI can be done like this. It can be used in a different way also.”

The Court emphasised that intermediaries can act only upon a “very precise list” of URLs. It directed the plaintiff to furnish an updated chart aligning screenshots with specific links to enable meaningful compliance. The bench also indicated that practicality and forum convenience are relevant considerations, particularly where the dispute appears primarily centred in Maharashtra.

Decision

The Court has not yet passed a final order. It directed the plaintiff to provide a precise list of allegedly infringing URLs and indicated that issues of jurisdiction and scope of relief will be examined further. The matter stands listed before the Joint Registrar on April 29, 2026 and before the Court on August 25, 2026.