The court, however, clarified that the specific links of alleged communal clash covered by the magistrate's order must not be restored.

The single judge bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha passed the interim order on a plea by Dileep T.N [alias Dileep Gowda Kunigal], who claims to be a member of the BJP's Karnataka social media committee and a state TV media spokesperson.

“….In view of the aforementioned, respondent No.5 - investigating officer (as the concerned officer as the case may be) is directed to communicate to respondent Nos.1 and 2, to restore the social media accounts of the petitioner. However, it is to be clearly specified that the objectionable links which have been ordered to be deleted vide order dated 27.08.2026 in Crime No.128/2026 is not to be restored…”, the court noted in the order.

The court has now issued notice to Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., and listed the matter on November 12.

The petitioner, in the plea, has sought a writ of mandamus to Meta Platforms Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. to lift the geo-block and restore the account.

According to the BJP leader, he had reshared a widely circulated video of an altercation between two groups of youths in August 2026.

For context, there was a clash reported on K R Road in Basavanagudi during the August 26 Milad-Un-Nabi procession from Kumaraswamy Layout. An altercation had allegedly broken out between Hindu Activists Puneeth Kerehalli, Gopi Gowda, Puneet Gowda, Chetan Naik and other associates belonging to Rashtra Rakshana Pade and the Nabi procession.

The petitioner- Dileep, however, states that he was not the author of the post, nor did he add any inciting caption or other links pertaining to the incident.

On the day that the spokesperson shared the video, Basavanagudi Police registered an FIR based on a complaint by Abdul Razak Khan- an organiser of Milad-un-Nabi procession. The FIR named Kerehalli and his associates; it alleged that they obstructed the Muslim procession on K.R. Road and shouted slogans as well as abused the participants.

These named persons in the FIR were charged for offences under Sections 196(1)(a), 196(1)(b), 196(2), 115(2), 299, 300, 302, 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

On August 27, the investigating officer sought a direction from a Bengaluru Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Cour to Meta, X Corp and Google/YouTube. In the said application, the officer asked for deletion of listed links and accounts attributed to the named accused in the FIR and disclosure of unique identifiers. The trial court had then directed the office to issue intimations to delete the links in the requisition, citing the need to avoid violence.

Accordingly, police sent intimations to Meta Platforms Inc. with respect to the problematic links.

After this, Dileep says that Facebook flagged his reshared video under its 'violence and incitement' policy. He had deleted it himself voluntarily when it was notified by the application. However, it did not end there, and four days later, the plea says that the spokesperson's Facebook page called 'Dileep Gowda Kunigal', with over 1.55 lakhs followers, was geo-blocked across India.

Though Dileep emailed Meta's grievance channel seeking restoration, it didn't yield a positive result, it's stated in the plea.

Advocates Girish Bharadwaj and Vivekananda N., appearing for the petitioner, argued that he is not an accused in the FIR, and the magistrate's order does not name him. Moreover, only a reshared video URL is attributable to his page, it was contended.

According to the petitioner, the magistrate had no power under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to order blocking of a non-accused person's account. In the petition, he argues this power lies under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which carries its own safeguards. It was also submitted that disabling the whole account after the only flagged post was deleted is a disproportionate action, violative of Article 19(1)(a), by relying on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.

The court was also to that the petitioner may keep his social media accounts so long as the objectionable links have been deleted.

Accordingly, the court directed the investigating officer, to communicate to Meta and its Indian counterpart that the petitioner's social media accounts should be restored. On the other hand, the court also gave a caveat that the links ordered to be deleted on August 27 pursuant to the crime registered in the matter should not be restored.