Justice Abhay Ahuja granted leave on Monday after hearing Gadkari’s application against social media companies, technology platforms and unidentified content creators accused of hosting, publishing or circulating the material. The proposed defendants include X Corp, Meta Platforms and Google, along with unnamed parties whose identities may emerge during the proceedings.
A detailed written order was not immediately available. The court’s permission enables Gadkari to formally pursue claims seeking removal of the disputed content, restraints on further circulation and other relief for alleged damage to his reputation.
Gadkari, who serves as minister for road transport and highways, has maintained that the Ethanol Blended Petrol programme is administered by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. His proposed suit argues that online posts wrongly portrayed him as controlling the E20 rollout and alleged that businesses linked to his family benefited from the policy.
The minister has described the material as false, manipulated and defamatory. Some of the disputed videos allegedly used artificial intelligence to imitate voices, alter visual material or create misleading presentations that appeared to connect him directly with commercial interests arising from ethanol production and fuel blending.
The legal action follows a widening online dispute over E20 petrol, a blend containing 20 per cent ethanol and 80 per cent petrol. The programme is intended to lower crude oil imports, expand the use of domestically produced biofuel, support agricultural supply chains and reduce some categories of vehicle emissions.
Public opposition has focused on mileage, mechanical compatibility and the absence of a widely available option to purchase petrol without the higher ethanol content. Owners of older vehicles have raised concerns about fuel-system components, corrosion, seals and performance in engines not designed for sustained use of E20.
The government told Parliament on Monday that it had not assessed the percentage of petrol vehicles on the road that are fully compliant with E20 fuel. Vehicles manufactured under newer emission and fuel standards are designed to handle the blend, but a large share of the existing fleet was sold before E20 compatibility became mandatory.
Official estimates indicate that fuel efficiency may fall by about 3 per cent to 5 per cent in some older vehicles not optimised for E20. The actual effect can vary according to engine design, maintenance, driving conditions and the vehicle’s original certification.
The controversy has also moved into organised political campaigning. A pressure group calling itself the E20 Janta Party has demanded that motorists be offered a choice between ethanol-blended fuel and unblended petrol. The group has also sought Gadkari’s resignation, although responsibility for implementing the blending programme rests with the petroleum ministry.
Aam Aadmi Party convenor Arvind Kejriwal has announced a national town hall on the issue at the Constitution Club of India on August 1. He has said vehicle owners, specialists and people claiming to have suffered problems after using E20 will be invited to participate. An online petition supporting optional access to unblended petrol has gathered close to 200,000 signatures, he said.
Separate criminal proceedings have added to the dispute. Nagpur Cyber Police registered a case this month against four online content creators following a complaint alleging that videos and posts about Gadkari and E20 contained false statements, abusive language and material capable of misleading the public.
The accounts named in that complaint included content associated with Manish Kashyap, Desi Boys NCR, Harshit Rathi and Anklesh Invate. The allegations remain subject to investigation, and registration of a police case does not establish guilt.
Gadkari’s civil action is distinct from the police investigation. It centres on reputational harm, the removal of allegedly unlawful content and the responsibility of digital platforms after receiving notice that disputed material may be fabricated or defamatory.
The case could test how courts balance personal reputation, political criticism and platform liability when artificial intelligence is used to manipulate speech or images. Criticism of government policy is protected within legal limits, but fabricated statements presented as authentic can raise separate questions involving defamation, impersonation and intermediary obligations.
Digital platforms generally rely on user-reporting systems, automated detection and formal legal notices to review disputed material. Identifying the original creator can be difficult when videos are repeatedly downloaded, edited and reposted through anonymous or overseas accounts.
(IPA Service)
