Telangana HC Sets Aside Section 94 BNSS Notice to X/Twitter Seeking User Data, Finds No Reference to Petitioner in FIR

The Telangana High Court quashed a police notice under Section 94 BNSS to X/Twitter seeking user data of P. Rajgopal, finding the FIR made no reference to him whatsoever.

The Telangana High Court, on 7 August 2026, set aside a notice issued by the Inspector of Police, Commissioner's Task Force, Rajendranagar Zone, Hyderabad, to X (formerly Twitter) under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The notice sought the basic user information, registration details, linked mobile number, linked e-mail ID, device particulars, and IP logs of the account @rajkarsewak, in connection with Crime No. 404 of 2026 registered at Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad. Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi, sitting singly, found on a prima facie reading of the FIR that the petitioner, P. Rajgopal, was not mentioned anywhere in it, and on that basis held there was no ground for the notice to have been issued at all.

The Notice and the Challenge Before the Court

FIR No. 404 of 2026, dated 30 July 2026, relates to an attempt-to-murder case registered at Falaknuma Police Station. The 3rd Respondent — the Inspector of Police, Task Force, Rajendranagar Zone — issued a notice dated 6 August 2026 to X (formerly Twitter) under Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023. Section 94 empowers a police officer to require production of documents or things necessary or desirable for purposes of an investigation.

The notice sought disclosure of the petitioner's basic user information, registration details, linked mobile number, linked e-mail ID, device particulars, and IP logs in connection with that crime. The petitioner, P. Rajgopal, moved this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the notice illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution, as well as contrary to Section 94 of the BNSS itself.

Two interlocutory applications accompanied the writ petition: one seeking suspension of the notice pending final disposal, and another seeking a direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner on the basis of any information obtained through the notice.

Petitioner's Contention: Account Details Already Known, No Nexus to the Crime

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vadeendra Joshi, raised two distinct objections. The first was practical: the details of the petitioner's Twitter account were already mentioned in the notice itself, making it pointless for police to turn around and ask Twitter to furnish the same information afresh.

The second objection went to jurisdiction: Crime No. 404 of 2026 did not name the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner apprehended that the respondents were attempting to implicate him in the crime without any basis, using the Section 94 notice as a vehicle to gather material that might later be used against him.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home opposed both prayers.

Court's Reasoning: FIR Itself Disclosed No Basis for the Notice

Justice Madhavi Devi went directly to the FIR. On going through the recitals in FIR No. 404 of 2026, dated 30 July 2026, which had been filed along with the writ petition, the Court found that there was no reference to the petitioner in any way.

That finding was sufficient. The Court formed a prima facie opinion that “there is no basis for the issuance of the notice under Section 94 of BNSS to X (Twitter).” The judgment did not require a deeper examination of the constitutional challenges under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21, because the foundational factual premise of the notice — that the petitioner had a nexus to Crime No. 404 of 2026 — was absent on the face of the FIR itself.

The reasoning carries a practical significance: a Section 94 BNSS notice issued to a third-party platform to obtain user data must have an identifiable connection between the person targeted and the crime under investigation. Where the FIR itself makes no mention of the person whose data is being sought, the notice cannot stand.

Order

The impugned notice dated 6 August 2026 was set aside insofar as it “observes that the petitioner is involved in Crime No. 404 of 2026.” The respondents were directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner without any basis and without following due process of law.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition were closed.