In a significant development, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has stayed an order issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), Ludhiana. The Magistrate had earlier directed various social media platforms to remove a widely circulated audio clip allegedly featuring a senior Punjab Police officer requesting sexual favors.
The High Court, led by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, issued the stay after hearing a petition filed by Panj Daria Vigilant Media Pvt. Ltd. The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 29, 2025.
Read also: Supreme Court Rejects Punjab Govt's Plea Against Bail of Bikram Singh Majithia in NDPS Case
“Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing,” the bench ordered.
Senior Advocate Bipan Ghai, representing the petitioner, strongly criticized the lower court’s decision. He argued that the Ludhiana Magistrate acted beyond legal boundaries by treating a private application as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)—a power reserved only for constitutional courts under Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution.
The application had been filed by one Davinder Singh Kalra, a self-identified social activist, and not by a directly affected individual. The petitioner’s counsel stressed that such a third party lacked the locus standi (legal standing) to seek the removal of the content.
“The Magistrate’s action not only exceeds judicial authority but also violates the principles of natural justice,” the counsel submitted.
The petitioners also highlighted that the Magistrate passed the order on the same day the application was submitted—without notifying the social media platforms or the petitioners. This, they argued, deprived the affected parties of their right to be heard, violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.
“This denial of any opportunity of hearing constitutes a flagrant breach of the principles of natural justice,” said the counsel.
Another major concern was that the Magistrate concluded—without any expert or forensic report—that the audio was “likely AI-generated” and “digitally manipulated.” The petitioners argued that such determinations require technical expertise and proper investigation.
Furthermore, the order not only sought to remove specific URLs but also placed a blanket ban on any similar content in the future.
“This vague and overly broad restraint, lacking clear definition or scope, amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech,” the petition noted.
Finally, the petition argued that the Magistrate bypassed the legally established route for content removal under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The rules require complaints to be submitted to the intermediary’s Grievance Officer, followed by an appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee if necessary.
The High Court has now put the Magistrate's order on hold and will review the matter further in July.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners.
Title: PANJ DARIA VIGILANT MEDIA PVT. LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
