The petitioner, Mithilesh Kumar, approached the Allahabad High Court through a writ petition seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, to ensure a fair, proper and expeditious conclusion of the investigation into his FIR registered under Section 67‑A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The FIR pertains to the alleged publication and transmission of obscene videos and photographs through a social media handle.
The matter was first listed before a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Padam Narain Mishra. The Bench expressed displeasure that, despite more than four and a half months having elapsed since the registration of the FIR, the investigation had not reached its logical conclusion. It questioned the basis for the prolonged pendency.
Interim Assurance and Subsequent Developments
On 6 May 2026, the State counsel assured the Court that police officials would make all endeavours to conclude the investigation positively within a month. However, when the case was taken up on 2 July 2026, the Court found that the investigation had effectively stalled. The Investigating Officer (IO) filed an affidavit stating that senior officials of X Corp (formerly Twitter) had refused to provide the URL ID and IP address of the handle through which the alleged obscene material was posted. The IO contended that this non‑cooperation left him handicapped and unable to proceed further, and he sought additional time to reach a logical end.
Court’s Observations on Non‑Cooperation
A Division Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant took exception to the stance of X Corp. The Bench observed that the non‑cooperation of officials of the social media handle ‘X’ with police investigations in such matters cannot be countenanced by the Court. It emphasised that social media handles are not immune from accountability under Indian law and that the arms of Indian law are long enough to reach any transgression and strong enough to bring offenders to justice.
The Court further noted that, while the responsible officials of X Corp had stonewalled the police investigation, the police had also abdicated their statutory duties. The combined conduct of the platform and the investigating agency, the Bench remarked, would ultimately enable offenders to evade justice.
Operative Directions
Taking note of the IO’s affidavit, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to appear in person before the Court on the next date of listing. The Police Chief was required to explain the steps taken to secure the cooperation of the responsible officials of X Corp and to ensure their accountability to the legal process.
Additionally, the Court ordered that a copy of its order be forwarded immediately to the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. The matter was scheduled to be listed afresh before the appropriate Bench on 12 August 2026.
Implications
The judgment underscores the principle that digital intermediaries operating in India are subject to the country’s legal framework and must comply with lawful requests from investigating agencies. It also highlights the judiciary’s expectation that law‑enforcement authorities discharge their statutory obligations diligently. The directions issued aim to break the deadlock in the investigation and to ensure that the alleged offence is examined in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act.