Back
Quashes Section 94 BNSS Notice to X Over FIR Without Petitioner
In a notable check on investigative powers over digital platforms, the has struck down a police notice issued to seeking a user's account information, after finding that the underlying FIR contained no reference whatsoever to the individual.
Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi, disposing of Writ Petition No. 26326 of 2026, set aside the notice dated , issued under — insofar as it treated petitioner P. Rajgopal as involved in Crime No. 404 of 2026 registered at , Hyderabad.
When the FIR Says Nothing
The impugned notice, addressed to X, sought the petitioner's basic user information, registration details, linked mobile number and email ID, particulars of devices used or logged in, and IP logs. Rajgopal, through counsel , made two key submissions: first, that his X account handle @rajkarsewak was already identified in the notice, making a further data request from the platform redundant; and second — more fundamentally — that Crime No. 404 of 2026, registered on , did not name him as an accused at all. He apprehended that the information request could be the precursor to implicating him in the case without any lawful basis.
The State, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, opposed the relief sought.
A Break in the Chain
Examining the FIR filed along with the writ petition, the Court found no factual hook connecting Rajgopal to the offence. The judgment records:
"On going through the recitals in FIR No.404/2026, dated , this Court finds that there is no reference to the petitioner in any way and is therefore of the opinion that there is no basis for the issuance of the notice under Section 94 of BNSS to X (Twitter)."
The Court's reasoning underscores a core safeguard: an intermediary disclosure mechanism cannot be deployed against individuals who are not even remotely connected to the case under investigation. The finding was confined to the material before it — specifically, the silence of the FIR — but its import is broader.
What Was Ordered
Disposing of the petition on , the High Court:
- Set aside the impugned notice insofar as it observed that the petitioner was involved in Crime No. 404 of 2026;
- Directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against P. Rajgopal without a basis and without following ;
- Made no order as to costs; and
- Closed all pending miscellaneous petitions.
Why This Matters for Intermediary Disclosures
Section 94 BNSS governs the production of documents and things during investigation. By insisting on a demonstrable nexus between the individual whose data is sought and the offence under scrutiny, the High Court has reinforced the constitutional protections enshrined in , which the petitioner had invoked.
For social media users and platforms alike, the ruling signals that blanket data requests — where the FIR itself fails to identify the target — risk being invalidated as arbitrary and disproportionate. The practical effect is equally significant: authorities must now ensure the foundational records of an investigation support any demand for user data before approaching intermediaries.
