LPU Violence Case: High Court Update, Section 66F and the NIA Question

The violence at Lovely Professional University (LPU), Phagwara, in late September 2026 has turned into one of the most closely watched cyber-crime matters before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. What started as a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a CBI probe has now moved to a larger question: should the National Investigation Agency (NIA) take over, now that the Punjab Police have added Section 66F of the IT Act (cyber terrorism) to the case?

This post sets out what has happened so far, what the High Court has ordered, and what it means in law.

Case at a glance

• Case: Ravi Raj v. Union of India and Others, CWP-PIL-279-2026
• Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor
• Petitioner: an LPU B.Tech student, seeking transfer of the probe to the CBI under the High Court's supervision
• Latest order: 4 November 2026
• Next date: 17 November 2026

How it began

On the night of 26 September 2026, an unverified post began circulating among LPU students. According to the petition, it appeared on Reddit and alleged that a student had been sexually assaulted on campus and had later died by suicide. The university called the claims false and baseless.

The post set off protests that turned violent on 26 and 27 September. Property was damaged and set on fire, and National Highway 44 near Phagwara was blocked for hours. Classes were suspended for ten days and mid-term exams were postponed. Police registered an FIR against unknown persons over the alleged sexual assault, and separate cases over the violence. Early arrests were reported within days.

So far, the police have told the court that the incident described in the post did not happen. The State also told the court that the original post had been deleted on 26 September, before the violence on the 27th.

Timeline of the High Court hearings

29 September 2026: PIL mentioned for urgent listing

Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra mentioned the PIL before the Chief Justice's bench, telling the court that rioting, arson and looting had taken place on campus. The court agreed to hear it the next day.

30 September 2026: Status report sought

The State said FIRs had been registered and investigation was under way. The court was not satisfied with an oral assurance. It asked for a full written status report covering the action taken, who was responsible, and whether the incident described in the social media post had actually happened.

12 October 2026: Court flags gaps in the police probe

After reading the status report, the bench said the investigation fell well short of its expectations. It asked the police to take note of the "larger implications" of a non-existent event on social media causing large-scale unrest. The court:

• gave the State police one more opportunity before considering an independent agency;
• directed that the probe be supervised by a senior officer of Punjab Police counter-intelligence; and
• recorded that the State would write to social media platforms, including Google, to take down posts about the non-existent incident.

4 November 2026: Section 66F added, and the NIA route opened

This is the key development. The Punjab Police's second status report said that material had prima facie emerged during investigation pointing to an offence under Section 66F of the IT Act, and the section was added to the case.

The petitioner argued that Section 66F is listed in the Schedule to the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which makes it a "scheduled offence" under Section 2(g). Once a scheduled offence is recorded, Section 6 of the NIA Act sets out a fixed process. The court noted that the State's affidavit did not show that the authorities had considered the NIA Act at all. It directed:

• the State to forward its report on the scheduled offence to the Central Government within 72 hours, under Section 6 of the NIA Act; and
• the Centre to decide within one week of receiving the report whether the NIA should investigate.

The order does not itself transfer the investigation. The Punjab Police continue to investigate unless and until the Centre hands the case to the NIA. Developments are to be placed before the court on 17 November 2026.

What this means in law

Why Section 66F changes everything

Section 66F is the most serious offence in the IT Act. It is punishable with up to life imprisonment, it is non-bailable, and it is tried by a Court of Session. We have explained its ingredients and the bail position in detail in our post on Section 66F IT Act: Cyber Terrorism and How to Get Bail.

Adding 66F also brings the case within the NIA Act. That is why the debate in court has shifted from "CBI or State police" to "should the NIA take over".

How the NIA Act Section 6 process works

1. When a scheduled offence is recorded, the officer in charge of the police station must send a report to the State Government.
2. The State must forward it to the Central Government as quickly as possible.
3. The Centre decides, based on the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, whether the case should go to the NIA. The statute contemplates a decision within 15 days.
4. If the Centre directs an NIA probe, the State police must stop their own investigation and hand over the records to the NIA.

The High Court has put this process on a timetable rather than leaving it open-ended.

The open legal question: is a false post "cyber terrorism"?

The police have not publicly explained what material led them to invoke Section 66F, so it is too early to comment on the specific facts. As a general point of law, though, Section 66F is narrow. Section 66F(1)(A) requires an intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in the people, carried out through particular means: denying authorised access, unauthorised access to a computer resource, or introducing a computer contaminant. It also requires a serious result, such as death, injury, destruction of property or disruption of essential services. Section 66F(1)(B) deals with unauthorised access to restricted information.

Spreading a false rumour online is a serious matter. It may attract offences such as promoting enmity, public mischief or statements conducing to public mischief under the BNS. Whether it also amounts to cyber terrorism will depend on whether the investigation shows the specific intent and the specific means that Section 66F requires. That question is likely to matter a great deal, both for the NIA decision and for anyone eventually named as an accused.

The wider lesson: misinformation as a law-and-order risk

Whatever the final outcome, the case shows how a single unverified post can lead to mass unrest within hours. The High Court has asked the police to look at those "larger implications". That includes how the post was made and spread, and how platforms respond to takedown requests. Expect this case to be cited in future debates on platform accountability and the criminal law on fake news.

What to watch on 17 November 2026

• Whether the State forwarded its report to the Centre within 72 hours.
• Whether the Centre has decided to hand the case to the NIA.
• If not, whether the court revisits the original prayer for a CBI probe under its supervision.
• Any further detail on the basis for invoking Section 66F.

We will update this post after the next hearing.

Need advice on a cyber crime or IT Act matter?

Rajat Kadyan and Associates advises on cyber crime and bail matters before the District and Sessions Court, Gurugram, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Phone: +91 82954 13475 · Email: contact@rajatkadyan.com

This post is based on publicly reported court proceedings as of 8 November 2026. The allegations in the petition and the investigation are untested. Rajat Kadyan and Associates is not involved in this case. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.