Can't Call Edited Videos Defamatory at Writ Stage, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that it cannot, at the writ stage, find that viral video clips relating to a Bhopal society dispute are defamatory, communally inflammatory or "synthetically generated information," and that such questions must first be examined by the investigating agency on the basis of the original electronic material.

A single bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by Anjali Singh, a resident of Amrapali Enclave in Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal, seeking police protection, preservation of electronic evidence, identification of the persons circulating the alleged objectionable content, and registration of a cyber offence.

According to the petition, the dispute traces back to the night of July 23, 2026, when parking blocks placed outside the petitioner's residence were removed and were being restored the next morning when an altercation broke out. The petitioner's case is that while the entire incident was captured on CCTV and an unedited video, portions of the footage were later selectively edited and circulated across social media with captions giving the episode a communal colour and falsely attributing religious remarks to her. She submitted that this triggered a wave of threatening calls and messages against her and her family.

The petitioner told the court that she had filed more than fifteen complaints and representations since July 29, including before the State Cyber Police and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, and that a representation dated August 6 specifically invoked the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, seeking takedown of the material and preservation of evidence. Her formal statement was recorded by police on August 10. She argued that despite this, the impugned content continued to circulate with no effective action taken.

Senior Advocate Shashank Shekhar, appearing with Advocate Siddhant Jain for the petitioner, relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India to argue that privacy is a constitutionally protected right, and on the Kerala High Court's decision in Anto Augustine & Others v. Union of India & Others to press the point that the State was legally obligated to act under the statutory takedown mechanism. He submitted that the continued circulation of manipulated material threatened the petitioner's "reputation, dignity, privacy and personal safety," and that authorities had a positive duty under Article 21 to protect her.

Additional Solicitor General S.M. Guru, appearing with Advocate Dev Sharma for the Union, and Government Advocate Mukesh Shukla for the State respondents, opposed the plea, arguing that the allegations raised disputed questions of fact unsuited to writ jurisdiction, that complaints had already been forwarded to the competent police and cyber authorities, and that no blanket direction for content removal or disclosure of user details could be issued without following the procedure under the IT Act and Rules.

The court agreed that the authenticity of the videos, who edited or circulated them, and whether they attracted penal provisions were factual questions for the investigating agency, not the writ court. It clarified it was expressing "no opinion regarding the genuineness, legality or otherwise of the alleged edited videos" or anyone's culpability. At the same time, it held the grievance over preservation of evidence and threats to safety "cannot be ignored."

Disposing of the petition, the court directed the competent police and cyber authorities to consider the petitioner's complaints and take action in accordance with law, including preserving the electronic evidence already placed on record, and to examine the specific URLs and objectionable content under the IT Act and IT Rules, 2021, wherever statutory requirements are met. The Commissioner of Police, Bhopal, was directed to assess an existing representation on threats and take preventive measures as warranted. The court also directed that the original CCTV footage and unedited video furnished by the petitioner be considered by the investigating authority, and that if any cognizable offence emerges from the material, proceedings be initiated in accordance with law.

Case Title: Anjali Singh vs. Union of India and Others

Date of Order: August 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi

Tags: