Constitutional Law – Regulation of Social Media – Challenge to Blocking Orders under IT Act, 2000 – Validity of 2021 IT Rules and Sahyog Portal – Petitioner, a global social media platform, challenged the constitutional validity of blocking orders issued by the Government of India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Petitioner argued that the blocking orders violate principles of natural justice, free speech, and are ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that the right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Petitioner, being a foreign company, cannot invoke Article 19 – Regulation of social media is essential to prevent misuse and crimes, particularly against women and children – Sahyog Portal held to be a valid instrument under Rule 3(1)(d) of 2021 Rules and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, aiding the execution of lawful orders – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 7.1, 10, 11, 13, 14.4, 17.1, 18.1, 24.2, 25].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Scope and Applicability – Foreign Social Media Platforms Not Entitled to Claim Rights under Article 19 – Court reiterated that Article 19 guarantees rights only to citizens of India – Foreign entities operating in India cannot claim fundamental rights under Article 19 – Petitioner’s attempt to invoke Article 19 against take-down orders held untenable – Freedom of speech is not unfettered and must yield to reasonable restrictions imposed in public interest [Paras 14.4, 19, 22.4, 24.2, Summary Point (6)].

Information Technology Act, 2000 – Blocking Orders – Compliance Obligations on Intermediaries – Constitutional Validity of Rule 3(1)(d) and Section 79(3)(b) – Sahyog Portal facilitates due process and enables intermediaries to comply with lawful orders – It is not ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that it serves the statutory purpose of assisting in regulation and monitoring of content on digital platforms – No merit found in the challenge to its validity [Paras 18.1, Summary Point (7)].

Algorithms – Human Agency – Regulation – Court Rejects Argument that Platform is Machine-Driven without Human Involvement – Petitioner argued that its platform is algorithm-driven without human control – Court rejected the argument, holding that algorithms are designed, coded, and managed by humans – Algorithms influence amplification of unlawful content – Therefore, regulatory responsibility cannot be evaded by citing automation [Paras 22.1–22.4].

Social Media Menace – Need for Regulation – Cyber Crimes Against Women and Children – Global Comparative Perspective – TAKE IT DOWN Act (USA) and Indian Regulatory Framework – Court observed that social media platforms facilitate spread of misinformation, hate speech, child sexual exploitation, deepfakes, cyberbullying, and gender-based abuse – Extensively cited global regulations including the TAKE IT DOWN Act in USA, and decisions from Brazil, EU, and Australia – Held that India is equally entitled to enforce regulations to protect public interest and ensure accountability of digital platforms – Regulatory action in India cannot be contested while similar or harsher laws are followed abroad [Paras 20, 23.1–23.10, 24.1–24.3, Summary Points (9), (11), (13)].

Violence Against Women – Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence – Role of Intermediaries – Citing reports from the UN and other international bodies, Court acknowledged the rising incidents of online gender-based violence facilitated by social media – Highlighted threats to safety, privacy, dignity and psychological well-being of women due to deepfakes, sextortion, and online hate – Held that platforms must be accountable and responsive to regulatory directives to mitigate such harms [Paras 23.6–23.7, 23.9, Summary Point (11)].

Comparative Law – Global Regulatory Trends – Digital Services Act (EU), OSA (Australia), Marco Civil (Brazil) – Court referred to international legislative developments like the EU Digital Services Act (2024), Brazilian Supreme Court rulings, and Australia’s Online Safety Act – Noted that petitioner complies with take-down laws in other jurisdictions but challenges Indian laws – Held that such differential treatment is unacceptable – Law must be followed uniformly by intermediaries [Paras 24.1–24.2, Summary Points (9), (13)].

Platform Accountability – Transparency Reports – Petitioner’s Own Data Reveals Non-Compliance with Content Removal Obligations – Petitioner’s August 2025 transparency report showed 31 grievances on child sexual exploitation with zero action taken – Court relied on this to affirm Solicitor General’s submission regarding the petitioner’s habitual non-compliance – Held that this justified regulatory oversight and enforcement actions [Paras 23.10].

Free Speech vs. Regulation – Constitutional Balance – Platforms Cannot Claim Immunity from Regulation in the Name of Free Speech – Court emphasized the delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm – Held that regulation of online content is essential for democratic discourse, public order, and protection of vulnerable groups – Social media cannot become a lawless zone under the guise of free expression [Paras 22.4, 23.9, 24.3, Epilogue].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court upheld the constitutionality of take-down orders, Sahyog Portal, and the IT Rules, 2021 – Found that social media platforms must comply with Indian law – Petitioner's non-compliance and selective adherence to foreign regulations found unjustified – Intervener applications also dismissed [Para 25].

Contempt of Court – Fraud on Court – Forgery – Abuse of Judicial Process – Husband of the appellant impersonated her and filed writ petition and writ appeal using forged signatures without her knowledge – Interim orders obtained based on misrepresentation – Court held this to be a gross abuse of process amounting to criminal contempt – Directed initiation of contempt proceedings under relevant provisions of law [Paras 1–17].

Misconduct by Advocate – Breach of High Court Rules – Advocate filed pleadings attesting signatures of the appellant without verifying her presence – Violated Rules 76 and 79 of the High Court Rules – Court permitted the appellant to initiate action against the advocate before appropriate forums [Paras 5, 11, 19].

Passport Law – Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case – Justification for Show-Cause Notice – Husband renewed passport from Indian Consulate, Dubai, without disclosing a pending criminal case – Show-cause notice issued under Sections 10(3)(b) and 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act upheld – Authorities permitted to proceed further in accordance with law after dismissal of the writ appeal [Paras 2, 20].

Immigration Law – Disobedience of Court Order – Attempt to Flee Country – Despite subsisting court direction not to travel abroad without permission, appellant’s husband attempted to fly to Dubai – Was offloaded by immigration authorities – Held: Attempt amounted to contempt and highlighted disregard for judicial authority [Paras 14, 21].

Costs – Exemplary Costs for Fraud and Misuse of Court Time – Rs. 1.5 lakhs directed to be paid to Kerala Legal Services Authority for abuse of judicial process – Additional Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed as compensation to the appellant for mental agony and dragging her into litigation without consent [Para 16].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Costs of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on Shibu Mohan – Registry directed to initiate criminal contempt proceedings – Appellant allowed to pursue complaint and action against counsel – Travel restrictions on Shibu Mohan to continue until contempt case is heard.

Criminal Law – Quashment – Section 188 IPC – Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act – Proceedings Quashed – Prosecution initiated for alleged disobedience of Government Order dated 13.06.2020 under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act – No valid order promulgated under the Act was in force on date of alleged offence – G.O.R.T.No.211 expired on 23.03.2020 – No complaint filed by concerned public servant as required under Section 195 CrPC – FIR and charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector treated as police report and not a valid complaint – Magistrate not competent to take cognizance – Held: Entire proceedings vitiated and liable to be quashed [Paras 3, 24, 28, 31–33].

Procedural Law – Section 195 CrPC – Bar to Cognizance – Complaint by Public Servant Mandatory – Cognizance for offences under Section 188 IPC can only be taken on a written complaint by the concerned public servant – Filing of charge sheet by police officer does not satisfy requirement – Magistrate’s cognizance based on such charge sheet held without jurisdiction [Paras 7, 8, 29–31].

Interpretation – “Complaint” vs. “Police Report” – Police report under Section 173(2) CrPC cannot be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC – Complaint must be filed with intention to set law in motion under Section 200 – Held: Charge sheet filed without authority was not a valid complaint under law [Paras 25–27].

Promulgation – Validity and Expiry – No Offence Can Be Attracted After Expiry of Underlying Order – No material to show existence of valid regulation/order under Epidemic Diseases Act on date of alleged offence – Held: Invocation of Section 3 of the Act is unsustainable [Paras 3, 32].

Cognizance – Guidelines on Section 188 IPC – Court reiterates law that police cannot register FIR under Section 188 IPC without complaint from public servant – Preventive action permissible under Section 41 CrPC but cognizance must follow procedure of Section 195 – Reliance placed on Jeevanandham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of A.P. [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 828 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam quashed for non-compliance with Section 195 CrPC and absence of valid order under Epidemic Diseases Act [Paras 31–33].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Standards of Proof – Allegation of Witness Tampering Not Corroborated – Bail of Accused No.19 (a former investigating police officer) cancelled by trial court based on a complaint by CW-42 alleging inducement – High Court held that cancellation of bail requires proof on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Since CW-42’s testimony was already recorded and no supporting inquiry or corroboration was provided, allegation found insufficient to justify cancellation – Held: Mere apprehension or unverified complaint cannot form basis for revoking bail [Paras 10–13].

Criminal Law – Politically Sensitive Investigation – Abuse of Process – Transfer to CBI – Bail of Other Accused Cancelled – The murder of Yogesh Gouda, allegedly politically motivated, was initially investigated by local police – Later transferred to CBI due to allegations of cover-up involving senior police officers and political figures – Bail of co-accused including sitting MLA cancelled due to evidence of witness tampering – However, petitioner’s case found to be distinguishable due to absence of concrete proof of misconduct [Paras 1, 12].

Evidence – Burden on Prosecution in Bail Cancellation – Referencing State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, Court reiterated that in cancellation of bail, prosecution must establish tampering or interference with judicial process on balance of probabilities – Relying solely on a witness's letter without inquiry or corroboration does not meet the threshold [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Not to be Cancelled on Vague Allegations – Liberty of Accused Requires Careful Balancing – Court emphasized need for caution in interfering with liberty granted by bail – Observed that allowing cancellation based on unverified complaints would open floodgates for misuse – Imposed continued adherence to original bail conditions and liberty to prosecution to seek future cancellation on fresh violation [Paras 8, 13–14].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Order dated 15.09.2025 cancelling bail set aside – Bail of petitioner (Accused No.19) restored on earlier terms – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation afresh upon future violations.

Civil Writ - Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300-A – Land Taken Without Compensation – TDR Certificates Directed – Petitioners executed gift deed for 405 sq. yards of land in 2014 for road widening—Respondents denied compensation or TDR on ground that land was voluntarily gifted as condition for building permission – Court held there was no record showing waiver of compensation or that gift deed was a pre-condition for permission – Held: Petitioners were entitled to TDR certificates as land was taken for public purpose without due compensation, violating Article 300-A of the Constitution [Paras 1–2, 14–20].

Municipal Law – Land Surrender for Public Purpose – Gift Deed Does Not Bar Compensation – Municipal Corporation relied on the gift deed and petitioners’ development benefits to deny compensation – Court ruled that gift deed cannot be used to override constitutional right to fair compensation for public acquisition – Building permission and constructed area allotted to petitioners were held irrelevant to the compensation claim [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Property Law – Voluntariness and Coercion in Development Agreements – Gift Deed Not Truly Voluntary When Conditioned on Official Permissions – Court noted that even if any affidavit or undertaking was taken from the petitioners to waive compensation, such documents would not amount to voluntary consent if extracted as a condition for development approval – Such undertakings were held unenforceable and contrary to constitutional protections [Para 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Compensation for Public Acquisition Must Be Fair and Just – Court relied on Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao v. State of A.P. and Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah – Reaffirmed that even if right to property is no longer fundamental, it remains a constitutional right—State cannot forcibly acquire land without compensation [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to calculate eligibility and issue TDR Certificates to petitioners within 8 weeks – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – POCSO Conviction – Acquittal – Allegation that accused committed sexual assault on 13-year-old girl by hugging and kissing her in a field – Victim’s initial statement to aunt was that she fell down – Complaint made two days later alleging sexual assault – Delay in complaint explained as concern for family honour – Trial court convicted accused under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354A(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found victim's version had evolved over time with inconsistencies and lacked corroboration – Allegation of enmity arising out of local election dispute supported by defence evidence including medical record showing assault on accused's mother a day prior to the alleged incident – Held: Delay in filing FIR and contradictions in victim’s version made prosecution case doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 13–20, 28–30].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttal – Accused produced evidence of prior assault by victim's family due to local body election rivalry – Accused’s mother injured and admitted in hospital one day prior to alleged assault – Certified medical record (Ex.D2) and testimony of defence witnesses including elected panchayat member (DW2) corroborated the version – High Court held accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 – Trial court failed to properly consider defence evidence – Acquittal justified [Paras 21–27, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in lodging complaint – Alleged incident on 05.01.2020 but FIR filed on 07.01.2020 – Police station just 10 km away – Delay not properly explained in the context of election violence and counter-allegations – Court held such unexplained delay significant and fatal to the prosecution case in present facts – Tutoring and exaggeration in victim’s statement evident – Held: Trial court erred in convicting by applying presumption without evaluating credibility of evidence [Paras 15–18, 28–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Victim compensation not disturbed [Para 31].

Property Law – Joint Ownership – Partition – Benami Transaction Defense – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiffs sought partition of properties jointly purchased in their names and that of the defendant – Defendant claimed that he alone contributed the entire consideration and plaintiffs were only benami title holders – Court held that Sale Deeds stood in joint names and defendant failed to produce any documentary proof to show exclusive contribution – No bank statements or financial records produced by the defendant for the relevant period (1997–2000) – Defendant's admission that no evidence existed to prove his sole funding, and his reliance on Dena Bank demand draft failed to rebut presumption arising from registered Sale Deeds – Held: Burden of proof to establish benami nature of transaction lies on the party alleging it – Defendant’s plea barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act – Presumption of ownership stands in favour of name-holders – Partition decree granted [Paras 10–16, 19].

Registered Title – Evidentiary Value – Burden of Proof – Registered Sale Deeds (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3) show names of plaintiffs and defendant as joint purchasers – Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of consideration passing to joint holders – No recital in the documents indicating that defendant was sole purchaser – Held: Registered title cannot be displaced without cogent evidence – Plaintiffs entitled to their respective shares as per recorded ownership [Paras 13–16].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Decree – Partition Relief Granted – Court held 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Royapuram property (Schedule A) and all three plaintiffs jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Madhavaram properties (Schedule B) – Defendant failed to establish exclusive ownership or contribution – No costs awarded due to family relationship [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Suit decreed – Preliminary decree for partition passed – 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Schedule A property – Plaintiffs 1 to 3 jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Schedule B properties – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Distinct Transactions – Simultaneous Invocation of Sections 406 and 420 IPC Not Mutually Destructive – Petitioner challenged FIR and charge sheet alleging both cheating and criminal breach of trust – Contended that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are mutually destructive when based on a single act – Court distinguished between the mental element (mens rea) in both offences – Held: Allegations pertain to three separate transactions—Two transactions relating to breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and one transaction involving inducement under Section 420 IPC – Therefore, simultaneous prosecution is legally sustainable [Paras 3, 18–22].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charge Sheet – Ingredients of Offence Present – Investigation and Complaint Disclose Prima Facie Offence – Petitioner argued lack of application of mind by police and mechanical filing of charge sheet – Court held that complaint and charge sheet disclose prima facie ingredients of distinct offences – No grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 5–8, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 420 vs. Section 406 IPC – Distinction in Mens Rea and Timing of Dishonest Intent – Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires dishonest intention at the time of inducement – Criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC requires dishonest misappropriation after entrustment – Court applied this distinction to facts and held both offences made out in different contexts [Paras 16–18, 21].

Precedent – Delhi Race Club v. State of U.P. (2024) 10 SCC 690 – Not Applicable When Offences Arise from Separate Transactions – Apex Court had held that cheating and breach of trust cannot be alleged simultaneously for the same act – Court held that ratio does not apply when offences arise from separate and independent transactions, as in the present case [Para 18, 22].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Simultaneous charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC upheld in view of distinct transactions – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Conviction Reversed – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for alleged murder of deceased by slitting his throat with an axe – FIR lodged by wife of deceased stated that she found husband lying dead in the night and named appellants on suspicion – During trial, witnesses claimed to be eyewitnesses and attributed motive – Held: Their testimonies contradicted the FIR and were inconsistent with cross-examination – Trial court erred in relying upon developed and contradictory versions – Conviction set aside [Paras 45–54, 72]

Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictory Versions – PW-1 (wife of deceased) and PW-2 (brother of deceased) claimed to have seen incident but their presence at the spot was contradicted by their own statements – FIR silent on actual witnessing of assault – Held: Eyewitness accounts developed as afterthought – Testimony not credible – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 46–49, 52–54, 64]

Motive – Failure to Prove – Prosecution alleged motive of personal enmity involving illicit relationship – PW-2 denied any such incident or knowledge – No corroborative evidence led – Held: Motive entirely unproved – Weakens prosecution case significantly [Paras 49, 56–57]

Recovery – Crime Weapon (Axe) – Recovery of axe allegedly made at instance of accused – PW-3, witness to recovery, retracted and stated recovery was staged by police – No proper disclosure statement proved – Recovery site was accessible to public – Site plan prepared five days after alleged recovery – Held: Recovery legally unreliable and inadmissible under Section 27 Evidence Act – Prosecution failed to prove recovery beyond doubt [Paras 65–71]

Benefit of Doubt – Infirmities in Prosecution – Inconsistent statements, unproven motive, fabricated recovery, and contradictions between FIR and trial evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable – Appellants acquitted [Paras 72–73]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellant Sukh Lal Bunkar already on bail – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant Pappu Sonkar to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Section 437-A CrPC to be complied with.