The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a formal notice to Google India Private Limited and the Union of India , following a petition filed by an engineering student unable to regain access to his personal data. The petitioner, Ashish Ranjan Mishra, claims that he has been effectively locked out of three accounts since his mobile device was stolen in August 2024 . The court’s intervention marks a significant escalation in a case where the user alleges that automated recovery systems are failing to provide any human-mediated solution for identity verification.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya issued notice of motion and notice on the prayer for interim directions , effectively compelling the respondents to respond to allegations that a previous order from the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) has been ignored. The matter has been scheduled for a further hearing on November 20, 2026 , with the Union of India already having entered an appearance through counsel.

Escalation of Procedural Grievances The current dispute stems from a long series of failed attempts by the petitioner to restore access to his digital life. After his handset—the only "trusted device" linked to his accounts—was stolen on August 18, 2024 , the petitioner found himself trapped in a verification loop. According to court records, the automated recovery process repeatedly requests a security code that can only be received via the locked accounts themselves, leaving the user with no path to verify his identity.

Before approaching the High Court , the student pursued multiple administrative avenues, including filing formal complaints with Google, submitting RTI applications, and registering a cyber crime complaint. These efforts eventually led to a previous writ petition , CWP No. 25369 of 2026 , which was disposed of on August 13, 2026 . At that time, the High Court directed the relevant appellate authority to adjudicate his grievances under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 .

Following that judicial nudge, the Grievance Appellate Committee issued an order on August 21, 2026 , explicitly directing Google India Private Limited to provide "appropriate guidance and support to the petitioner to facilitate the recovery of data from his Gmail accounts." Despite this directive, the petitioner asserts that the company has failed to take any substantive action. His subsequent emails to the tech giant, specifically one sent on September 9, 2026 , have remained unanswered, prompting the current round of litigation.

Challenges to Data Retention Policies Beyond the immediate issue of account access, the petition introduces a broader legal challenge concerning corporate data retention policies . The petitioner has contested Google’s internal policy that limits the preservation of email data to a period of two years. He argues that this timeframe stands in direct contradiction to the standards established under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 .

The petitioner contends that the statutory framework requires intermediaries to preserve user data for a minimum period of three years. By enforcing a two-year retention policy, the petitioner alleges that the service provider is failing to align its operational protocols with the legislative requirements of the 2023 Act, a point that will likely form a significant component of the upcoming judicial scrutiny.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the Union of India appeared before the court, accepted the notice, and requested time to file a formal reply. By ordering that notice be served upon the tech giant, the court has signaled that it intends to weigh the necessity of interim directions to prevent the potential loss of the petitioner’s stored data.

Impending Judicial Review The case highlights the growing friction between automated platform security and the rights of individual users to access their own personal data. As the court prepares for the next hearing, the focus will likely remain on whether Google’s internal grievance redressal mechanisms are functioning in compliance with the GAC’s specific mandates and whether the current data policies pass legal muster under the governing information technology laws.

With the process now moving forward under the Court's supervision, the tech giant will be required to explain its failure to act on the committee’s August order and justify its data retention timelines. For the petitioner, the court’s decision to issue notice provides a potential, albeit delayed, pathway to recovering years of personal data that currently remain unreachable behind the platform’s security protocols. All eyes are now on the November 20 hearing, where the responses from the Union of India and Google are expected to define the next phase of this ongoing legal battle.