Denial of Hearing and Absence of Expert Basis Render Order Unsustainable: Punjab and Haryana High Court Stays Magistrate's Unauthorized Treatment of Application as Public Interest Litigation
Isabella Mariam
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Single Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, issued an interim stay on an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), Ludhiana. The High Court recorded that the operation of the impugned order, which had disposed of an application treating it as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without jurisdiction, shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing.
The Court took cognizance of serious procedural lapses, including the assumption of jurisdiction not vested in a Magistrate under the Constitution and violations of natural justice principles. The Court observed that the order adversely impacted the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and bypassed statutory grievance redressal mechanisms under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Notice of motion was issued, and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on 29.07.2025.
The instant petition was filed by Panj Daria Vigilant Media Pvt. Limited and another, seeking quashing of the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned JMIC, Ludhiana. The impugned order had disposed of an application filed by one Davinder Singh Kalra under Section 3(1)(d) and 3(2)(b) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 read with Section 90 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioners contended that the learned Magistrate erroneously entertained the said application as a "Public Interest Litigation" and passed substantive directions without jurisdiction. The application was filed not by an aggrieved party but by a third-party social activist, who lacked locus standi. It was submitted that jurisdiction to entertain PILs vests exclusively with Constitutional Courts under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.
It was further pointed out that the Magistrate issued the order on the very day of the application's filing without issuing any notice to the petitioners or the concerned social media platforms. The absence of an opportunity of hearing was alleged to constitute a grave breach of the principles of natural justice.
The senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bipan Ghai, submitted that the learned Magistrate had made findings of technical nature, concluding that the impugned audio clip was "likely AI-generated" and "digitally manipulated" without the aid of any expert or forensic report. It was argued that such conclusions were legally impermissible and beyond the competence of a judicial officer at that stage.
Further, the impugned order not only targeted specific URLs but also imposed a blanket future prohibition on dissemination of any "similar" content, which was described as vague, overly broad, and amounting to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.
Lastly, it was submitted that the statutory mechanism under the IT Rules, 2021—which involves filing a complaint with the Grievance Officer of the intermediary platform and an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee—had been circumvented, rendering the order procedurally irregular and legally unsustainable.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul recorded that "prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of order dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned JMIC, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Magistrate has disposed of an application... by treating it as Public Interest Litigation, which was beyond the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate."
It was further recorded that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioners or the concerned social media platforms, and that "this denial of any opportunity of hearing constitutes a flagrant breach of the principles of natural justice."
The Court also noted that the learned Magistrate recorded findings that the audio clip was "likely AI-generated" and "digitally manipulated" without relying on any expert or forensic reports. The Bench observed that "such technical findings made without requisite expertise or investigation are legally impermissible."
Addressing the overbreadth of the restraining order, the Court recorded that "the order not only targets specific URLs but also imposes a blanket prohibition on the dissemination of any 'similar' content in the future," and that "this vague and overly broad restraint... amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech."
On the issue of procedural irregularity, the Court observed that "the statutory mechanism for content removal under The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021... has been entirely circumvented, rendering the impugned order both procedurally irregular and legally unsustainable."
The High Court directed as follows:"Notice of motion for 29.07.2025. Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate.
Case Title: Panj Daria Vigilant Media Pvt. Limited and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number: CRM-M-21531-2025
Bench: Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
[Read/Download order]
