Telangana High Court Quashes Section 94 BNSS Notice Seeking X User Data Absent from FIR

A disclosure demand with no foundation in the case file has been struck down by the Telangana High Court, which found that the police had no prima facie basis to seek a citizen's social media records.

Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi, sitting at the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad , set aside a notice issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 , that directed the platform X (formerly Twitter) to hand over a user's account details. The decisive factor: the person whose data was sought never appeared anywhere in the FIR under investigation.

A Notice With No Paper Trail

The dispute arose from Crime No. 404 of 2026, registered on July 30, 2026 , at Falaknuma Police Station , Hyderabad, in connection with an attempt to murder case. On August 6, 2026 , the Inspector of Police from the Commissioner's Task Force issued a notice under Section 94 BNSS addressed to X, seeking the petitioner P. Rajgopal's basic user information, registration details, linked mobile number and email ID, particulars of devices used or logged in, and IP logs.

Rajgopal, however, was nowhere in the FIR. He moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution , arguing that the notice was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 . He further sought to suspend the notice and restrain the police from taking coercive steps against him.

A Petitioner's Fear of Implication Without Basis

Represented by advocate Vadeendra Joshi , the petitioner argued that his X account details were already mentioned in the impugned notice, making a further request to the platform pointless. More critically, he contended that since Crime No. 404 of 2026 did not name him as an accused, the respondents appeared to be attempting to implicate him in the case without any legal foundation.

The State, through the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, opposed the relief sought, defending the notice's validity. But the High Court was unpersuaded.

The Missing Name in the FIR

Examining the FIR filed alongside the writ petition, Justice Madhavi Devi observed that there was "no reference to the petitioner in any way." This single fact was dispositive.

"On going through the recitals in FIR No.404/2026... this Court finds that there is no reference to the petitioner in any way and is therefore of the prima facie opinion that there is no basis for the issuance of the notice under Section 94 of BNSS to X (Twitter)."

The Court made clear that while Section 94 BNSS empowers authorities to seek information in the course of investigation, that power cannot be exercised against an individual who has not been connected to the offence under probe.

Notice Set Aside, Coercion Barred

The High Court set aside the impugned notice insofar as it observed that the petitioner was involved in Crime No. 404 of 2026 , and directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against Rajgopal "without any basis for the same and without following due process of law."

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. The ruling serves as a reminder that investigative powers—however broad—must trace their origin to material that actually implicates a person, and that a citizen's digital footprint cannot be demanded on a whim when the case file points to no involvement at all.