The Telangana High Court has recently annulled a notice issued by the Hyderabad police directed at the social media platform X, demanding various details about a user account in connection to an attempted murder investigation. The case, cited as P Rajgopal v The State of Telangana, was presided over by Justice T Madhavi Devi.
Justice Devi determined that the specific user in question was not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) related to the attempted murder case. Consequently, the court found no legitimate grounds for the issuance of the notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), leading to its revocation.
In her order dated August 7, Justice Devi stated, “The respondents are therefore directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner without any basis for the same and without following due process of law.” This decision effectively prevents the police from proceeding with actions against the petitioner without concrete evidence or adherence to legal procedures.
Background of the Case
The notice issued to X on August 6 targeted the account handle @rajkarsewak. This was contested by P Rajgopal, who argued that the police’s demands were illegal, arbitrary, and beyond their jurisdictional authority. The police were seeking comprehensive user information, including registration details, linked mobile numbers, email IDs, device particulars, and IP logs, as part of the investigation conducted by the Faraknuma police station in Hyderabad.
Rajgopal’s legal representative contended that the necessary account details were already contained in the notice given to the intermediary, making further requests redundant. Furthermore, it was highlighted that Rajgopal was not listed as an accused in the criminal case, raising concerns that the police may attempt to unjustly implicate him.
More Read
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the submissions, the Telangana High Court decided to quash the police’s notice. The court also issued a cautionary directive to the authorities against taking any coercive measures against Rajgopal without a valid basis or without following the due legal process.
Advocate Vadeendra Joshi represented Rajgopal in this matter.
