Granting interim relief, Justice Arif Doctor said the content identified by Gadkari had no place on public platforms.
"One such transcript appears on Instagram reel. There are other contents. The material which the plaintiff seeks to pull down, I can only say that the same is absolutely vile and abusive. Such material should have no place on a public platform, which is accessible to everyone, including young," the court said.
Don't Miss: Without ethanol, petrol could have hit ₹125/litre; no widespread engine failures from E20, says Gadkari
The court noted that Meta and Google had appeared before it and agreed to remove the content listed in the suit. "Meta and Google have appeared, and they have agreed to take down the material set out in Exhibit C. Their statement is accepted," the order said.
WHAT GADKARI'S SUIT SAID
Gadkari filed the suit against Meta, X, Google/YouTube, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department of Telecommunications and unknown users identified as "Ashok Kumar/John Doe".
He sought permanent and mandatory injunctions for the removal of manipulated videos, AI-generated images and other content that he described as defamatory deepfakes.
According to the plea, the posts falsely held him personally responsible for the E20 programme and suggested that he and his family had financially benefited from it.
The petition specifically referred to claims that his son, Nikhil Gadkari, runs CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, an ethanol manufacturer, and that the company indirectly benefited from ethanol blending in petrol.
Gadkari denied the allegations.
Must Read: Some BS-3 vehicles may need minor changes when running on E20 fuel, says Nitin Gadkari
The plea also said several posts, reels and videos falsely blamed him for introducing or mandating E20 petrol and for vehicle damage allegedly caused by ethanol-blended fuel.
According to the suit, these allegations falsely insinuated corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of office by claiming that his family had "derived undue pecuniary benefits" from the programme.
The petition argued that these claims amounted to "documentary falsity" because, according to official records cited in the suit, the E20 programme is implemented by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.