'Social Media Handles Not Immune From Indian Laws': Allahabad High Court On 'X' Corp Stonewalling Obscene Video Probe

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed thus:

"Non-cooperation of officials of the social media handle 'X' with police investigations in such matters cannot be countenanced by this Court. Social media handles are not immune from accountability to Indian laws and investigation agencies acting in pursuance of powers vested by law. The arms of the Indian law are long enough to reach any transgression and strong enough to bring the offenders to justice".

These observations were made after the Court took note of an affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer (IO), which stated that X Corp had not provided the URL ID and IP address of the handle through which certain allegedly obscene videos and photographs of the petitioner had been posted.

The IO specifically pleaded that due to this non-cooperation, he was "handicapped to proceed further in the matter" and sought more time to reach a logical end.

Taking exception to this stance, the Court noted that the affidavit appeared, prima facie, to be an admission of "policing failure".

The Court observed that while the responsible officials of 'X' had 'stonewalled' the police investigations, the police had also "abdicated their statutory duties". Their combined conduct, the Bench noted, would ultimately "enable the offenders to cheat justice".

Briefly put, petitioner (Mithilesh Kumar) had moved the High Court with a writ plea seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, to ensure a fair, proper, and early conclusion of the investigation into his FIR registered under Section 67-a of the IT Act [Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form].

The matter first came up before a Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Padam Narain Mishra, wherein the petitioner's counsel argued that, despite 4.5 months having elapsed since the FIR was registered, the investigation had not been brought to its logical conclusion.

Expressing displeasure over the state of affairs, the Bench had remarked thus:

"We fail to understand as to on what ground the investigation of concerned case crime number has remained pending for more than four and a half months."

Subsequently, on May 6, 2026, the Court was assured by the state counsel that the police officials would “make all endeavours to conclude the investigation positively within a month”.

However, when the matter was taken up on July 2, 2026, the Court found that, due to the refusal of the concerned senior officials of the social media handle 'X' to cooperate, the police machinery had effectively allowed the investigation to come to a standstill.

The IO had specifically stated that the deponent is handicapped and, as such, sought more time to proceed further in the matter.

Taking note of this, the Court observed that, due to the refusal of senior officials of 'X' to cooperate, the police machinery had effectively brought the investigation to a standstill.

To ensure accountability, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to appear in person before the Court on the next date of listing.

The Police Chief has been directed to explain the steps taken to ensure that the responsible officials of the concerned social media handle 'X' lend their cooperation to the police investigation and are held accountable to the process of law.

The matter will be listed again as a fresh case before the appropriate Bench on August 12, 2026.

The Court also directed that a copy of its order be forwarded immediately to the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, as well as the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh.