Senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal is under fire for resharing an AI-generated, Ghibli-style image related to the ongoing land dispute in Kancha Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The image, stylized in the whimsical animation aesthetic made famous by Studio Ghibli, shows bulldozers near the iconic Mushroom Rock alongside animals like deer and peacocks — an illustration that has now become a lightning rod in a much larger conversation about land use, environmental preservation, and digital ethics.
Smita Sabharwal, currently serving as the Principal Secretary of Youth Advancement, Tourism, and Culture, reshared the image on X (formerly Twitter), originally posted by a local digital platform. Though seemingly artistic, the image is connected to a highly sensitive and politically charged issue: the proposed development of approximately 400 acres of land in Kancha Gachibowli, adjacent to the University of Hyderabad (UoH), for commercial and IT infrastructure.
The Telangana government’s plan to auction this land has sparked protests from students, environmentalists, and political opposition groups, who argue that the area is ecologically sensitive and rich in biodiversity. Many fear that transforming the green belt into an urban sprawl would destroy the natural habitat and contribute to irreversible environmental damage.
In this charged atmosphere, Sabharwal’s resharing of the AI-generated image was interpreted by some as trivializing the gravity of the situation. While the image appears to be a symbolic representation of the conflict between development and nature, critics argue that a senior bureaucrat using such content — especially without contextual explanation — may inadvertently influence public perception and misrepresent facts.
The issue escalated when the Cyberabad Police began investigating the spread of AI-generated content in relation to the Gachibowli land matter. Authorities are concerned about misinformation being propagated through stylized or manipulated visuals that can skew public understanding of ongoing legal and political disputes. In this context, Sabharwal received a notice under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), summoning her as a witness to provide details about the nature and intent of the post.
Although the officer has not issued a detailed public statement, government sources indicate that her intent was to promote environmental awareness and reflect the sentiment of preserving green spaces. Supporters argue that the image should be viewed as an expression of concern for nature, not as a political or administrative statement.
Nonetheless, the backlash has sparked a broader conversation about the digital responsibilities of public officials in the age of artificial intelligence. With AI-generated images and videos becoming increasingly sophisticated and difficult to distinguish from reality, their usage — especially by influential figures — is coming under intense scrutiny.
Legal experts have pointed out that while sharing artistic content is not inherently wrong, public officials are expected to exercise greater caution when dealing with topics currently under judicial consideration. The Gachibowli land case is being heard in both the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court, where petitions challenge the legality of land ownership and its proposed commercialization.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, have taken the incident as an opportunity to amplify their message about conserving urban green spaces. They insist that regardless of the digital misstep, the focus must remain on preventing unchecked development and preserving Hyderabad’s rapidly shrinking natural environment.
As the controversy unfolds, it underscores the delicate balance public servants must maintain in the digital age — between personal expression and public responsibility. Smita Sabharwal, often referred to as the “People’s Officer” for her social media presence and citizen engagement, now finds herself at the heart of a debate over the role of bureaucrats in shaping narratives around contentious public issues.
With legal proceedings ongoing and public opinion sharply divided, the episode serves as a cautionary tale about the power — and potential pitfalls — of digital expression in modern governance.