Any other relevant data that could assist in their investigation. Source: TeluguScribe on X Who issued the notice: R. Bhaaskaran, IPS, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Telangana.When: April 18, 2026.

Under what sections: Summons to produce a document or other thing, under Section 94 of BNSS. [Read the full section here] Obligation to furnish information under Section 43F of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). [Read the full act here] Why: “…frequently making tweets contain highly objectionable and filthy language along with morphed videos and photos,” read the notice posted by TeluguScribe on X. “This behaviour not only undermines the dignity of a public figure but also has the potential to incite hatred and violence.” “These tweets not only damage the reputation of the individuals involved but also incite public unrest and violate several legal provisions.

It is essential to identify the suspect behind these unlawful activities to prevent further harm and ensure that appropriate legal action can be taken,” the notice further read. What is missing from the Telangana police notice: What are the “highly objectionable” posts that Telangana police found to be in “filthy language along with morphed videos and photos”? Who is that “a public figure”?

How will X or anyone assess the allegations of TG police if the specific URL information is not shared with X? Without disclosing the concerned “highly objectionable” posts, how can TG police defend seeking information not only related to “account registration information” but also extensive “usage logs and activity details” and vague “any other relevant data” if there is a specific URL of the concerned post? What does it mean by “potential to incite hatred and violence”?

“The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It should have a proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest.

In other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated, like the equivalent of a “spark in a powder keg,” – Shreya Singhal judgement. Not the first time extensive user data sought from X: For instance, recently, in April 2026, the Delhi Police sent a data request to X seeking information on “IP addresses with port details of all active sessions” and “any other information”. Similarly, during the same time period, the Haryana police also sent a similar notice to X asking for similar information, including the “prompts given to @Grok and related generated posts in their log records”. Also Read: How India’s Police Is Using Metadata Into the unknown: search and seizure of digital devices in India Here’s Why We’re Worried About Kolkata Police Sending Legal notice to this X user