The Bombay High Court on Monday permitted Union Minister Nitin Gadkari to institute a civil suit against Meta, X Corp, Google LLC, YouTube, and other entities over the circulation of allegedly defamatory and AI-generated deepfake content linking him to the Centre's ethanol-blended fuel policy.

According to court proceedings reported by Bar and Bench, Gadkari has alleged that several social media posts, videos, reels and AI-generated clips falsely claimed he was personally responsible for the government's E20 petrol policy and that he and members of his family had financially benefited from its implementation.

The minister has termed the allegations false, malicious and defamatory, asserting that they have caused serious damage to his public reputation and personal credibility.

Gadkari Seeks Removal of Alleged Deepfakes

In the proposed civil suit, Gadkari has sought permanent and mandatory injunctions directing the removal of content that allegedly uses abusive language, falsely attributes statements to him and circulates manipulated audio and video generated through artificial intelligence.

The petition states that the disputed material unlawfully simulates his name, image, likeness and voice without his consent.

According to the suit, the circulation of such content has caused "grave and irreparable" harm to his reputation, dignity, goodwill and public image while also violating his personality and publicity rights.

Case Targets AI-Manipulated Content

The legal action specifically focuses on content that Gadkari claims has been digitally altered or fabricated using artificial intelligence technologies.

The petition distinguishes between legitimate public criticism and defamatory misinformation, stating that the suit is not intended to suppress fair debate or criticism based on factual information.

Instead, it argues that the impugned content crosses the limits of protected free speech by spreading false allegations through manipulated media designed to mislead viewers.

Social Media Platforms Named as Defendants

The proposed suit names several major technology companies as defendants, including:

• Meta (Facebook and Instagram)

• X Corp

• Google LLC

• YouTube

• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)

• Department of Telecommunications (DoT)

The petition also includes unidentified individuals responsible for creating and distributing the disputed content, who have been impleaded as "Ashok Kumars/John Does", allowing legal action against persons whose identities are currently unknown.

Growing Legal Focus on Deepfakes

The case adds to the growing legal scrutiny of AI-generated deepfakes in India, where courts and regulators are increasingly examining the misuse of artificial intelligence to impersonate public figures and spread misinformation.

Deepfake technology can generate highly realistic audio and video that appears authentic, making it difficult for viewers to distinguish fabricated content from genuine recordings.

The Bombay High Court's order permitting the suit allows Gadkari to formally pursue legal remedies seeking removal of the disputed material and appropriate relief against those allegedly responsible for creating, hosting or distributing it.

Bokadia, known for decades of work behind films like Aaj Ka Arjun, Insaniyat Ke Devta and Laal Baadshah, returned to filmmaking with Teesri Begum after a seven-year gap. The story follows Pooja, a woman who marries a man named Babban Khan after falling for his manipulations, converting her religion and taking the name Naghma in the process — only to later discover he already has two other wives. Zarina Wahab, Mugdha Godse and Kainaat Arora star in the film, which Bokadia has described as being based on a true incident.

The road to release wasn't smooth. Before its theatrical debut, the film ran into trouble with the Censor Board over a scene in which Babban Khan's character says "Jai Shri Ram." The board ordered the scene removed, and Bokadia initially pushed back, challenging the directive in the Bombay High Court and stating he had no intention of cutting the scene or its dialogue regardless of the cost. He eventually reversed course, removing the scene, after which the film received certification and was cleared for theatrical release.

Despite the legal battle generating attention, Teesri Begum didn't translate that into box office success, and the film underperformed in cinemas. Its move to OTT roughly two months after the theatrical run gives it a second shot at reaching an audience — one Bokadia has said he hopes will include a wide cross-section of women viewers, given the film's focus on themes of self-respect and social awareness around marriage and exploitation.

Bokadia's filmography spans roughly six decades and around 60 films, including hits like Teri Meherbaniyan, Pyaar Jhukta Nahin and Naseeb Apna Apna, along with collaborations across generations of Bollywood stars, including Amitabh Bachchan and multiple films with Rajinikanth. Teesri Begum marks one of his more overtly issue-driven projects in recent years, continuing a career built partly around socially themed dramas.

The film streams on WAVES OTT starting July 18.

Justice GS Patel alleges threats for 10 months; daughter attacked in London and fresh letter demanded video retracting 2024 ruling

Retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam S. Patel has told reporters he and close family members have faced sustained threats over the past 10 months that he links to a 2024 judgment in the Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute. The claims include an attack on his daughter in London in April and a new anonymous letter that demanded he withdraw his verdict in a public video, according to the retired judge and media reports.

Immediate allegation

Justice Patel, who retired in April 2024, said the threats began after he delivered a contested judgment on April 23, 2024, that recognised Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin as the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community. Initial reports in Bar & Bench and The Indian Express said the ruling resolved a long-standing dispute involving claims by Khuzaima Qutbuddin and later his son Taher Fakhruddin.

Attack in London

According to the retired judge, his daughter Aditi Patel was assaulted in Watford, near London, on April 22, 2026 — two months ago. She was returning from dropping her child at school when an unidentified man allegedly struck her from behind, fracturing her nose. UK police opened an investigation and are examining possible links between the assault and prior threats to the family. The West Hertfordshire Counter Terrorism Unit is reported to be reviewing the incident.

Fresh letter and extortion demand

Justice Patel said he received another anonymous letter on June 5 that demanded he withdraw the April 2024 judgment by recording a YouTube video declaring the verdict wrong and saying he had been forced to deliver it. The letter included an SD card and warned of deadly consequences if the demand was not met, he told media. He said a similar warning had prompted a complaint to Mumbai police last year; a police report dated September 9, 2025, was filed at Gamdevi station after an earlier threatening letter.

Official channels informed

The retired judge said he has notified the Indian High Commission in London, the Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and Surya Kant (a senior judge) about the threats. “I have been retired since April 2024. A Bombay High Court judgment cannot be set aside through a YouTube video,” Justice Patel told reporters, stressing that judicial orders cannot be reversed by extrajudicial pressure.

Local authorities and response

Sources familiar with the matter said UK police are coordinating enquiries with Indian officials, given the cross-border elements. Justice Patel’s daughter and son-in-law lodged a formal complaint with local police in the UK after the April attack, according to the retired judge.

The Bombay Bar Association passed a resolution condemning the threats and the attack on Justice Patel’s family and urged the Ministry of External Affairs to take up the matter with British authorities. “We call for immediate steps to ensure the safety of the judge and his relatives,” the association said in its resolution, a copy of which was shared with news outlets.

Community reaction

The office of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin issued a statement saying the Dawoodi Bohra community stands for peace, tolerance and respect for the rule of law, and does not endorse any attempt to influence the judiciary or resort to intimidation. No other individuals or groups have publicly claimed responsibility for the threats.

Context and implications

The succession dispute generated high-profile litigation and community tensions after competing claims surfaced following the death of the previous Dai. Justice Patel’s 2024 ruling settled the legal question in favour of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, but, as the recent events underscore, the matter continues to have social and personal repercussions for those involved.

What happens next

Investigations are ongoing in the UK into the assault and in Mumbai regarding the letters. Justice Patel has said he expects both British and Indian law-enforcement agencies to follow up and warned that any failure to pursue leads across jurisdictions could amount to “systemic failure.” Officials contacted by this paper declined immediate comment; UK police referred queries to the ongoing investigation.