The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday stayed a trial court’s directive to various digital platforms for the removal of a viral audio call, in which a senior police officer was allegedly heard soliciting sexual favours from a woman.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by Panj Daria Vigilant Media Private Limited. The petitioner contended that the order, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) Vibha Rana, lacked jurisdiction and was procedurally flawed.

The High Court issued notice to the Punjab government and other respondents, listing the matter for further hearing on July 29. "Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing," the Court directed.

The impugned order, dated April 7, had directed major digital platforms including Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter), to take steps to prevent the upload or circulation of the controversial audio recording. The JMIC also issued a general advisory to the public, urging them not to share the clip, citing concerns over its authenticity—suggesting it could be digitally manipulated or even AI-generated.

The directive was issued on an application filed by social activist Devinder Singh Kalra under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules and Section 90 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

However, during Thursday’s hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that Kalra had no locus standi to approach the magistrate, as he was neither directly aggrieved nor affected by the content. It was further submitted that the JMIC had acted beyond her jurisdiction by entertaining what was effectively a Public Interest Litigation—a domain reserved for constitutional courts.

The petitioners also took issue with the fact that the order was passed ex parte on the very day the application was filed, without issuing notice to the affected parties. Moreover, the magistrate’s observation that the audio clip may be AI-generated was challenged as being speculative and unsupported by any expert analysis.

Arguing that the order amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech, the petitioners urged the High Court to intervene.

Taking note of the submissions, the High Court stayed the operation of the JMIC’s order.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Bipin Ghai, assisted by Advocate Nikhil Ghai.