Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a resident of Ahmedabad alleging that demolition work at a government college building was being carried out without tender proceedings and in collusion with government officers. The petition was founded entirely on a viral WhatsApp video, which the court found insufficient to sustain judicial proceedings, noting that in the era of deepfake technology, images, videos, and audios can be manipulated using artificial intelligence to target individuals, and that such content circulates virally without anyone being able to confirm its authenticity.

A public interest litigation was filed before the High Court of Gujarat by a resident of Ahmedabad claiming to be a social worker and community leader. The petitioner asserted that on 04.02.2026, he received a viral WhatsApp video alleging that demolition work of a building at a government college was being undertaken without any tender process and that scrap material was being removed in collusion with government officers and the college Principal. The petitioner stated that he personally visited the college premises on 05.02.2026, took photographs and selfies at the site, and relied on those photographs in support of the plea.

Also Read: Detailed Appreciation Of Evidence Is Impermissible At Bail Stage : Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail In SC/ST Act Murder Case

The petition alleged that the demolition contract had been awarded without floating a tender and sought restraint against the authorities. However, the petition did not disclose the manner in which the alleged absence of tender proceedings was verified. The pleadings also contained a reference to “illegal sand mining,” which the petitioner’s counsel described as a typographical error. The respondents included the State authorities, and the petition was presented as one in public interest.

On being queried about verification of the allegations, the Court noted that no satisfactory response was provided. It observed, "On a query made by the Court as to how the said statements could be verified, and how the genuineness of the video could be ascertained, which is the sole basis of filing the present petition, no proper answer could be given by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, vehemently argued that, in these days of Social Media, the information circulated by way of messages and videos cannot be ignored and due credence is to be given by the Court, to the allegations therein to initiate an enquiry.”

Dealing with reliance on social media material, the Bench stated, “These are the days of deepfake; images, videos or audios have been edited or generated using artificial intelligence (AI) to target any person. Such videos are circulated and made viral by the people, none of whom can vouch for their authenticity.”

On the scope of public interest litigation, the Court observed, “The tool of the public interest litigation cannot be utilized by anyone claiming to be a social worker, on the basis of any viral video or information circulated on the social media.” It further recorded that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest alone would have locus standi, “but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.”

The Bench set out the parameters for entertaining such petitions, stating, “In order to maintain a public interest litigation, it is imperative for the court to satisfy itself about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite.” It added, “Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests… nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations… and avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.”

The Court further recorded, “In such case, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.” It concluded on this aspect that, “this Court is not satisfied with the bona-fides of the petitioner and his credentials cannot be certified.”

Also Read: Unmarried Women Cannot Be Denied Public Employment On Presumption Of Marriage And Relocation: Gujarat High Court

The Court recorded, “In view of the above, we find that the present public interest litigation based on the information received by the petitioner in a viral video clip, is a wholly misconceived petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly though without costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr Miren Priyadarshi, Ms Ratna Vora, Ms Anita Salomi B Kapadia

For the Respondents: Ms Hetal Patel, AGP

Case Title: Luhar Jayantibhai Jugabhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:14029-DB
Case Number: R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 7 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice D.N. Ray