3 min readNew DelhiAug 18, 2026 02:30 PM IST
The Telangana High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a woman for allegedly recording and sharing online the hearing of a case against her estranged husband noting that the alleged act was a matter of investigation by the police.
Justice J Sreenivas Rao was hearing the woman’s plea against a case registered against her by the local police under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957.
“The specific case of the petitioner is that she was physically present before this Court on 13.11.2025 and that she neither downloaded any information from the live streaming, nor shared/transmitted any such information to anyone through social media, are disputed facts and the same have to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress,” the August 14 order stated.
The court further directed the investigating officer to follow the legal guidelines, including the ones stipulated in the Arnesh Kumar case dealing with the procedure of arrest. The woman was accused of recording the live-streamed court proceedings on November 13, 2025 and transmitting it to others through WhatsApp. The matter related to a hearing under POCSO in which her husband was an accused and was granted bail following which she challenged the bail order. The recording in question related to hearing over the challenge of his bail order.
Justice J Sreenivas Rao directed the investigating officer to follow the BNSS procedure and the Supreme Court’s Arnesh Kumar judgment safeguards. (Image enhanced using AI)
‘Was present in court’
The petitioner, submitted that his client did not record or transmit the hearing and was being framed.
Raghunath referred to Rule 5 of the Telangana High Court Rules for live-streaming and recording of court proceedings, submitting that proceedings relating to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were excluded from live-streaming.
He further submitted that the alleged offences carried imprisonment of less than seven years and argued that the investigating officer had not followed Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar.
Counsel appearing for the husband, opposed the plea.
Story continues below this ad
Additional Public Prosecutor Jithender Rao Veeramalla reiterated the submissions of the husband and submitted that since the alleged offences were punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment, the principle in Arnesh Kumar applied.
The court, therefore, noted that the claims were disputed facts, requiring investigation. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the investigation and could raise all pleas available to her under law after receiving notice from the investigating officer.
Disposing of the plea, the order added, “The petitioner shall also cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth her grievance by raising all the pleas which are available to her under law as soon as she receives notice from the Investigating Officer.”
Justice J Sreenivas Rao directed the investigating officer to follow the BNSS procedure and the Supreme Court’s Arnesh Kumar judgment safeguards. (Image enhanced using AI)