ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the State authorities and the concerned social-media intermediaries in relation to circulation of allegedly edited and misleading video clips concerning an incident dated 24.07.2026 at Amrapali Enclave, Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal. The petitioner also seeks preservation of electronic evidence, identification of persons responsible for circulation of the alleged objectionable material, protection to herself and her family, registration and investigation of the alleged cyber offence, and appropriate action under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the petitioner has been involved in certain civil and administrative disputes concerning the management of Amrapali Enclave and common areas thereof. According to the petitioner, parking blocks situated outside her residence were removed during the night of 23.07.2026 and were being restored on 24.07.2026 when an altercation took place. The petitioner asserts that the entire occurrence was recorded in CCTV footage and also in an unedited video. It is her case that, thereafter, portions of the incident were selectively edited and circulated through various social-media platforms with captions giving the incident a communal colour and falsely attributing religious remarks to her.

3. The petitioner submits that, following such circulation, she and her family started receiving threatening calls and messages. She accordingly submitted complaints before the police authorities, State Cyber Police and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal from 29.07.2026 onwards. The NCRP complaint was transferred to Police Station Chuna Bhatti, while subsequent complaints were forwarded by the Cyber Police to the DCP (Crime)/ACP Cyber. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 06.08.2026 invoking the IT Rules, 2021 and seeking removal of the alleged objectionable material and preservation of electronic evidence.

4. The petitioner further submits that she appeared before the police and her statement was recorded on 10.08.2026. She also sought transfer of investigation from Police Station Chuna Bhatti. It is alleged that despite more than fifteen complaints and representations, the impugned material continues to circulate and no effective action has been taken. The petitioner has relied upon the original/unedited video and CCTV footage, stated to have been filed in a pen-drive along with a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as Annexure IA/1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continued circulation of manipulated material poses a serious threat to the petitioner's reputation, dignity, privacy and personal safety. It is contended that the State authorities are under a positive obligation to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities failed to take appropriate steps under the IT Rules, 2021 despite receiving specific complaints and information concerning the URLs and electronic locations of the alleged objectionable content. It is also submitted that the intermediaries failed to comply with their grievance-redressal obligations. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, for the proposition that privacy is a constitutionally protected right, and upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Anto Augustine & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (C) No.9839/2024, in support of the submissions concerning the statutory mechanism under the IT Rules.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner involve disputed que