.webp)
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court order summoning two persons in connection with allegations arising from an incident at the Supreme Court premises and the subsequent circulation of a video on Instagram.
Justice Madhu Jain, hearing the matter on September 17, 2026, held that at the summoning stage, the Court is not required to decide whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction. The limited question is whether there is sufficient material to proceed with the case.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution along with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the July 14, 2026 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts.
The trial court had taken cognizance of offences under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, and summoned the petitioners to face trial. Proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, were not initiated.
The complaint related to an alleged incident on January 30, 2026, followed by the circulation of a video on Instagram. The petitioners argued that the allegations arose from a longstanding dispute and that there was insufficient material to summon them. They also questioned the attribution of the Instagram account.Court's Observation
The High Court noted that the trial court had considered both the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence before issuing the order. The fact that cognizance was taken under some provisions while proceedings under the SC/ST Act were declined indicated that the material had not been accepted mechanically in its entirety.
The Court observed:
"At the stage of summoning, the Court is not required to determine whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction. The limited question is whether the material placed before the Court discloses sufficient ground to proceed against the accused or not."
On the Instagram material, the Court noted that its authorship and attribution remained open for determination. Whether the electronic material could ultimately be attributed to petitioner No. 1, and what evidentiary value it would carry, were matters to be examined in accordance with law.
Decision
The High Court held that the petitioners' grounds essentially sought a re-appreciation of material already considered by the trial court. It found no manifest illegality, perversity or abuse of the court process warranting interference with the summoning order.
Accordingly, Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending applications, while clarifying that the order should not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
Case Details:
Case Title: Meenal Agarwal & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2883/2026
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: September 17, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
