X Corp v. Government Of NCT Of Delhi
$~111 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ X CORP .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate via video-conferencing with Mr. Ankit Parhar, Ms. Mathuvanthy Mathavan, Mr.
Tejpal Singh Rathore, Mr.
Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Tanish Gupta, Ms. Sanchi Seth and Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocates.
versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State.
Insp. Anand Kumar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
O R D E R
% 26.05.2026 CRL.M.A. 17023/2026 Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4217/2026 & CRL.M.A. 17022/2026 (interim stay) By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of Kalandra proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3411/2021 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi ('CJM').
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
2.
Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the respondent had demanded from the petitioner company certain information relating to the 'X' (formerly Twitter) account of one Mohd. Zubair; but in view of the extant legal regime at that time, the petitioner had responded stating that since the company was based in San Francisco, United States of America, the Investigating Officer ('I.O.') would have to follow the procedure under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between India and the United States of America for obtaining the requested information.
3.
Mr. Aggarwal submits, that in view of the position taken by the petitioner, which was the correct legal position at the relevant time, the subject Kalandra dated 17.02.2021 came to be registered. 4.
It is submitted that it is these Kalandra proceedings, which are still pending before the learned CJM, that are subject matter of the present petition.
5.
Mr. Aggarwal argues however, that subsequently the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 were promulgated with effect from 25.02.2021; whereupon, in response to notice dated 08.09.2021 received from the ACP, CyPAD, Special Cell under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Rule 67/67A of the Information Technology Act 2000, the Resident Grievance Officer of the petitioner company promptly responded vidé communication dated 17.09.2021 furnishing to the I.O. the requisite information, in accordance with the newly enforced legal obligations.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
6.
Learned senior counsel argues, that in view of the above, the essential grievance that was the basis of the Kalandra came to an end; and no cause survives for further proceedings in the matter. 7.
Learned senior counsel submits however, that the I.O. is still pursuing the proceedings pending before the learned CJM, whereas the substratum of the issue has disappeared, since the information soughtfor has been provided to the I.O. long ago. 8.
Issue notice.
9.
Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appears on behalf of the State on advance copy; accepts notice; and on instructions of the I.O., confirms that information demanded vidé notice dated 08.09.2021 has been provided.
10. Learned APP submits however, that the petitioner company has remained unrepresented before the learned CJM, which was the reason bailable warrants were issued by the learned CJM.
11. Mr. Aggarwal submits, that bailable warrants have since been recalled, since the petitioner has assured the learned CJM that the petitioner company would be represented before that court on the next date of hearing.
12. In view of the submissions made, this court is of the view that though nothing survives for further prosecution in the Kalandra proceedings against the petitioner company, the appropriate course of action would be for the petitioner to be represented by its authorised representative before the learned CJM on the next date, which is stated to be 10.07.2026; and the learned CJM should pass appropriate orders keeping in mind what has been recorded in the present order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
13. The present petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J MAY 26, 2026/ds The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.