An interim order, not a final one: the Karnataka High Court has ordered Restoration Of BJP Spokesperson’s Facebook Page, but only on the condition that the links a magistrate directed to be deleted in a communal clash case stay off the platform.
Bengaluru: On a writ petition against Meta, the Karnataka High Court has asked the investigating officer in a Bengaluru clash case to tell the company to restore a BJP spokesperson’s social media accounts, with the specific links ordered deleted by a magistrate remaining deleted [Dileep T.N. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others].
Justice C.M. Poonacha passed the order on October 13, 2026, on the petition filed by Dileep T.N. alias Dileep Gowda Kunigal. The Court issued notice to Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and listed the matter for November 12. The order is interim and expresses no final view on the petitioner’s challenge.
The direction
The Court recorded the petitioner’s contention that he is entitled under Article 19 of the Constitution to maintain his social media accounts so long as the objectionable links have been deleted. It then directed:
“In view of the aforementioned, respondent No.5 – investigating officer (as the concerned officer as the case may be) is directed to communicate to respondent Nos.1 and 2, to restore the social media accounts of the petitioner. However, it is to be clearly specified that the objectionable links which have been ordered to be deleted vide order dated 27.08.2026 in Crime No.128/2026 is not to be restored.”
Counsel for the petitioner was also allowed to inform Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. that the petition is pending, and to place that intimation on record on the next date.
The clash and the deletion order
The petition traces back to an altercation on August 26 on K R Road in Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, involving participants in a Milad-Un-Nabi procession and members of a group of activists. A First Information Report, Crime No. 128/2026, was registered on a complaint by an organiser of the procession. The allegations in that FIR are untested, and nothing in this order decides them.
On August 27, the investigating officer asked a Bengaluru magistrate for orders directing social media platforms to delete specified links attributed to the persons named in the FIR. The magistrate directed deletion of the links mentioned in the requisition, and the police then communicated that order to Meta.
The petitioner’s account
Mr. Dileep says he is a member of the BJP’s Karnataka social media committee and a state TV media spokesperson. According to his petition, he reshared a widely circulated video of the altercation, Facebook flagged the post under its violence and incitement policy, and he deleted it himself. About four days later his page, which has more than 1.55 lakh followers, was geo-blocked across India, and a grievance email to Meta did not result in restoration.
His counsel told the Court that he is not an accused in the FIR and that the magistrate’s order does not name him. The order records the contention that the police intimation to Meta went beyond the magistrate’s direction: although the magistrate ordered only the deletion of links, the police communication led to the entire account being deleted.
The petition also argues that a magistrate has no power under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to block a non-accused person’s account, that the power to block content lies under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act with its own safeguards, and that disabling a whole account over one flagged post is disproportionate and violates Article 19(1)(a). It relies on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.
The respondents’ reply is yet to be recorded. The Additional Government Advocate took notice for the State respondents on October 8, and Meta has been issued notice.
Content and account, treated apart
In practice, the interim direction separates two things that had been treated together: the specific content a magistrate has ordered removed in a criminal investigation, and the account of a person who is not an accused. The links stay down, while the account returns pending the hearing.
The larger questions raised in the petition, including whether a magistrate can order blocking against a non-accused person’s account under the BNSS and how that interacts with Section 69A of the IT Act, remain open for the hearing on November 12.
Case Title: Dileep T.N. alias Dileep Gowda Kunigal v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others [WP 29704/2026 (GM-RES)]
Bench: Justice C.M. Poonacha, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Girish Bharadwaj and Vivekananda N. for the petitioner