A petition filed on a social media platform has emerged after a three-month standoff regarding the removal of content that allegedly glorifies crime, as per the Punjab police. This controversy began on January 31, 2026, when a magistrate court in SAS Nagar (Mohali) heard a petition related to an FIR dated January 29. The FIR targeted unidentified individuals for spreading "fabricated misinformation," claiming that a new government policy would lead to the deaths of one lakh youths in Punjab. The Punjab police requested the removal of several video clips from X, including those from various news channels. Additionally, the police sought the removal of a clip purportedly showing a video call between gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and a Pakistani gangster, Bhatti, made from a Gujarat prison, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Punjab police.
Court Issues Warning Against Broad Restrictions The Magistrate Court's Clarification on Freedom of Expression
The court, allowing the police to identify platforms sharing this specific misinformation, issued a clarification on freedom of expression by First-Class Judicial Magistrate Manpreet Kaur. The court noted that many videos merely recorded public reactions to police actions or encounters. The magistrate cautioned that broad restrictions would hinder public discourse on police misconduct. The order mandated the removal of only those videos that made specific claims about "one lakh youths." The right to free speech and expression includes the citizens' right to document and expose the actions of public officials.
However, the Punjab police issued show-cause notices to X on February 16 and March 10, demanding the removal of 22 additional posts.Police Threatens Legal Action Against Social Media Platform Legal Threats Under IT Act
The police warned X that it had lost its "safe harbor exemption" under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act and threatened prosecution under Section 84B. On March 3, the police issued a pre-arrest notice to an employee of X under Section 35(3) of the Indian National Security Code (BNSS). X denied the allegations, stating that seven of the 22 posts were not available on its platform, and the remaining 15 were merely "fair commentary on reports from reputable media organizations and public events." The company argued that these posts did not glorify crime and were outside the limited scope of the court's order.
