Anjali Singh's Plea for Blanket Takedown of Edited Video Rejected by MP High Court

In a significant ruling that balances the right to privacy with the need for factual investigation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to issue a blanket direction for the removal of a viral edited video allegedly showing Anjali Singh , the daughter-in-law of former state Chief Secretary A.V. Singh, making derogatory remarks during a housing society altercation. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi instead directed police authorities to preserve electronic evidence and assess threats to the petitioner's safety, while leaving the substantive determination of the video's authenticity to the investigating agency.

A Viral Video and a Plea for Safety

The dispute stems from an incident on July 24, 2026 , at Amrapali Enclave in Bhopal's Chuna Bhatti area. According to the petitioner, parking blocks outside her residence were removed and restored, sparking an altercation that was captured on CCTV and an unedited video. Singh alleged that portions of this footage were later selectively edited and circulated on social media platforms with captions that gave the incident a communal colour and falsely attributed religious remarks to her.

Following the circulation, Singh claimed she and her family began receiving threatening calls and messages . She filed multiple complaints from July 29 onward with local police, the State Cyber Police, and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal , and submitted a representation under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 seeking removal of the objectionable material and preservation of evidence. Despite her statement being recorded on August 10, she asserted that no effective action was taken.

Court's Principled Refusal of Blanket Orders

The High Court carefully examined the petitioner's demand for a blanket takedown of all allegedly defamatory content. Rejecting this broad relief , the court observed that the authenticity, completeness, and context of the videos involve disputed questions of fact that require examination by the competent investigating agency under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT 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."

The court further noted that a blanket direction to private intermediary respondents to remove all content, without identification and examination of specific offending material, cannot ordinarily be issued in writ jurisdiction .

Balancing Rights and Investigation

While refusing the blanket takedown, the court acknowledged the petitioner's genuine apprehension regarding personal safety and preservation of electronic evidence . It directed the competent police and cyber authorities to consider her complaints in accordance with law and take appropriate steps, particularly for preservation of electronic evidence and investigation of any cognizable offence.

On the prayer for immediate registration of an FIR and transfer of investigation , the court held that the police authority shall consider the complaint and act if a cognizable offence is disclosed. However, the petitioner cannot seek transfer 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.

Directions for Evidence and Protection

The court disposed of the petition with the following key directions:

  • The competent police/cyber authority shall consider the complaints and take appropriate action, including preservation of relevant electronic evidence .
  • The competent authority shall examine the grievance regarding specific online content and, where statutory requirements are satisfied, take action under the IT Act and IT Rules, 2021 .
  • The Commissioner of Police, Bhopal , shall examine the petitioner's request for protection and take preventive measures based on a threat assessment.
  • The investigating authority shall consider the original CCTV footage, unedited video, and other electronic material produced by the petitioner, including the pen-drive with a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 .
  • If any cognizable offence is disclosed, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with law.

The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the genuineness or legality of the alleged edited videos or the culpability of any person, leaving the authorities to act independently and strictly in accordance with law.

Key Observations

"Such questions are appropriately examined by the competent investigating agency on the basis of the original electronic material and other evidence."

"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 ruling underscores the judiciary's reluctance to intervene in content moderation without a proper factual foundation, while reinforcing the constitutional duty of the state to protect life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.