Court emphasizes preservation of electronic evidence, adherence to IT Rules, and threat assessment for petitioner amid circulation of allegedly manipulated communal content
In a significant judgment dated August 20, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, addressed a writ petition filed by Anjali Singh seeking directions against the circulation of allegedly edited and misleading videos that portrayed a communal angle relating to a local incident in Bhopal. The petitioner sought intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution to restrain the circulation of objectionable online content, preservation of electronic evidence, protection for herself and her family, and registration and investigation of the alleged cyber offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The incident in question occurred on July 24, 2026, at Amrapali Enclave, Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal, involving removal and restoration of parking blocks outside the petitioner's residence, which led to an altercation. The petitioner contended that while the entire event was captured on CCTV and unedited video footage, selected portions were maliciously edited and circulated on social media platforms with captions falsely attributing religious remarks and communal motives to her. This, she argued, resulted in threatening calls and messages directed at her and her family.
Despite multiple complaints filed from July 29, 2026 onwards with local police, the State Cyber Police, and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, the petitioner asserted that no effective action had been taken to stop the circulation of the objectionable content or identify those responsible. She also submitted the original electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage and unedited videos certified under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, to the court.
The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the grievances, particularly highlighting the petitioner's right to privacy and protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, citing the landmark Supreme Court ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. However, the Court noted that the contested issues involved disputed questions of fact' such as authenticity of the videos, the context of statements, and identities of those circulating the material' which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court directed the competent police and cyber authorities to investigate the complaints thoroughly, preserve all relevant electronic evidence, and take appropriate legal action if any cognizable offence was disclosed. It also ordered the Commissioner of Police, Bhopal, to conduct a threat assessment and provide necessary protective measures to the petitioner and her family. The petitioner was advised to provide specific URLs, screenshots, and other digital details of the objectionable content to facilitate removal under the IT Act and the IT Rules, 2021.
Importantly, the Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the genuineness of the edited videos or the merits of the allegations, leaving the investigation and legal determination strictly to the authorities. The judgment underlines the responsibility of intermediaries under the IT Rules to act upon lawful grievances and highlights the balance between freedom of expression and protection from digital abuse.
This ruling reinforces the evolving judicial approach to cyber-related disputes, emphasizing procedural fairness, evidence preservation under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the need for timely intervention by law enforcement agencies to safeguard constitutional rights in the digital age.
Bottom Line:
The court addressed a petition seeking directions concerning circulation of edited videos, preservation of electronic evidence, identification of those responsible for circulating objectionable material, and protection to the petitioner and her family under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Information Technology Act, 2000, IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Anjali Singh v. Union of India, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971960
