MP High Court Refuses 'Blanket' Takedown Of Viral Video Allegedly Showing Ex-Chief Secretary's Daughter-In-Law Insulting Temple
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to issue a blanket direction for takedown of a viral video allegedly showing the daughter-in-law of former Madhya Pradesh Chief Secretary A.V. Singh making a derogatory reference to a temple during an altercation with residents of a Bhopal housing society. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that the authenticity, completeness and context of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to issue a blanket direction for takedown of a viral video allegedly showing the daughter-in-law of former Madhya Pradesh Chief Secretary A.V. Singh making a derogatory reference to a temple during an altercation with residents of a Bhopal housing society.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that the authenticity, completeness and context of the video require examination by the competent investigating agency as per procedures prescribed in the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
"At this stage, this Court would not be justified in recording a finding that the impugned videos are in fact defamatory, communally inflammatory or “synthetically generated information” , as such findings require examination of the original material and the applicable statutory framework. Likewise, a blanket direction to the private intermediary respondents to remove all such content, without identification and examination of the specific offending material, cannot ordinarily be issued in writ jurisdiction".
The petitioner claimed that the entire incident was recorded on CCTV as well as in an unedited video. She alleged that portions of the incident were subsequently edited and circulated through social media platforms with captions giving the incident a communal colour and falsely attributing religious remarks to her.
The petitioner also alleged that, following circulation of the videos, she and her family began receiving threatening calls and messages. She said she submitted complaints to the police authorities, State Cyber Police and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal from July 29 onwards. Her statement was recorded by the police on August 10, but no effective steps were taken. She also sought transfer of the investigation.
The respondent-authorities claimed that the allegations made by the petitioner involve disputed facts, and therefore action is being taken in accordance with the law. The counsel further argued that the authorities cannot issue a blanket ban on the removal of social media content without following the procedure under the Act of 2000.
The court noted that the primary grievance was regarding the edited video and consequential threats received by her and her family. The court noted that such questions are required to be examined by the competent investigating agency. Thus, the court held that it would not be justified to issue blanket directions to remove such content.
However, considering the threat to personal safety, the bench noted that the complaint showed that the matter was already brought to the notice of competent authorities. The court noted that the authorities are required to consider the complaint and investigate.
Regarding the petitioner's prayer for registration of an FIR, the bench noted that the police authority would consider the complaint and would take appropriate action if it found that the allegations disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. However, the petitioner cannot seek the said prayer merely on the basis of apprehension, especially in the absence of material demonstrating that the existing investigation is unfair or incapable of being conducted impartially.
Referring to the prayer for removal of objectionable content, the bench noted that the petitioner had the liberty to submit details of the specific URLs and other material and that a competent authority would consider the grievance in accordance with the IT Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Regarding her prayer for police protection, the court directed the Commissioner of Police of Bhopal to examine the petitioner's representation and take preventive measures if warranted.
Case Title: Anjali Singh v Union of India, WP-33764-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 348
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Shashank Shekhar with Advocate Siddhant Jain
For Union: Additional Solicitor General S.M. Guru with Advocate Dev Sharma
For State: Government Advocate Mukesh Shukla