"I Am Not A God": Godman Aniruddha Bapu Moves Delhi High Court To Restrain Devotees From Portraying Him With Gods

In what it described as a “very surprising suit,” the Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a personality rights case filed by Mumbai-based godman Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, popularly known as Aniruddha Bapu, who is seeking to restrain his own followers from portraying him as a deity.

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,” as the Court considered a plea that does not allege defamation or commercial disparagement, but instead challenges devotional content created by the plaintiff's own followers.

Joshi's counsel told the Court that the suit targets deepfake videos falsely attributing statements to him and AI-generated images showing him in the company of gods and goddesses. “I am not a god,” counsel emphasised, adding that such depictions are “antithetical to everything I stand for” and that the spiritual leader is “embarrassed by” content elevating him to divine status.

Objecting to portrayals of him as figures such as “Narad Muni” or “Dattatreya,” counsel submitted, “I follow a path of the Divine. I am not the Divine.”

The bench observed that the case presents a delicate balance between devotion and individual autonomy. “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,” the Court noted.

At the same time, it acknowledged the complexity of regulating faith-based expression online, remarking, “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.”

Counsel for Facebook,defended the content in question, submitting that “80-90%” of the posts merely consist of followers praising Joshi, wishing him on his birthday, or treating him as a godman or father figure. “If this is out of devotion, does this amount to infringement?” the counsel asked, arguing that nothing placed on record so far appeared “egregious” or inherently violative of personality rights.

The intermediary further contended that the plaintiff must clearly categorise and particularise the allegedly infringing content instead of seeking a sweeping takedown.

Google, another intermediary informed the Court that several YouTube links cited in the plaint were already unavailable, either removed by uploaders or taken down following complaints. It submitted that while specific video links can be examined under the Information Technology Rules mechanism, entire channels cannot be removed without identification of particular infringing videos.

The Court emphasised that intermediaries can act only upon a “very precise list” of URLs and directed Joshi's counsel to furnish an updated chart aligning screenshots with specific links. It also noted the element of apprehension in such cases, observing that even if the content presently appears benign, misuse through artificial intelligence remains a legitimate concern.

The bench also questioned why the suit was instituted in Delhi when the spiritual leader, his organisation and most of his devotees are based in Maharashtra.

Referring to the principle of forum non-convenience, the Court indicated that practicality cannot be ignored when the entire cause appears centred in Maharashtra. Joshi's counsel, however, argued that the cause of action is global in nature and that “the doctrine of forum convenience cannot be used” to non-suit the plaintiff once jurisdiction is made out under Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.

The Court said it will pass an order. The matter is now listed before the Joint Registrar on April 29, 2026 and before the Court on August 25, 2026.