Telangana High Court Quashes FIRs On Social Media Posts Against Congress Party & Chief Minister; Issues Guidelines On Prosecution Of Political Speech

The Court was hearing three connected criminal petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIRs registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2008.

A Bench comprising Justice N. Tukaramji, after hearing submissions from counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, observed that “Acts that amount to intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace, online mischief calculated to promote enmity or violence, and defamatory imputations, if duly established would justify continuation of prosecution. Conversely, where the statutory ingredients of the offence are absent, mere political criticism, however harsh, cannot attract criminal sanction”.

Advocate T.V. Ramana Rao appeared for the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao represented the State.

Background

The FIRs stemmed from three posts made on the social media platform “X” (formerly Twitter). The first post described the Congress party as the “scourge of the state,” likening it to a pest. The second post carried a photograph of the Chief Minister with the caption, “No Vision, No Mission, Only 20% Commission.” The third contained allegedly vulgar remarks directed at the Chief Minister.

Based on complaints filed by private individuals and police personnel, cases were registered for offences including provocation to cause riot, intentional insult, public mischief, defamation, criminal conspiracy, and obscenity under Section 67 of the IT Act.

The petitioner contended that these posts constituted political opinion protected under Article 19(1)(a) and lacked the intent or effect necessary to attract the offences

Court’s Observations

The High Court, upon examining the facts of the case, held that while social media posts can amount to cognizable offences such as defamation, incitement, or public mischief, the prosecution must prima facie establish both intent and harmful effect before filing an FIR. 

While reading out the essential ingredients to make a case under such circumstances, the Court stated that “Mere publication of offensive or critical content, without making out a case of an intention to cause the prohibited consequences, is insufficient to proceed with the criminal proceedings. Authentication of the content, proper collection of evidence and positive identification of the person responsible for the posting are essential prerequisites.”

On the first post, the Court found it to be harsh political criticism that could not attract Sections 192, 352, or 353 BNS. The second post, though closer to defamation, remained within the domain of political criticism, "with statutory defences of truth and fair comment available". The third post, though abusive, was not obscene under Section 67 IT Act and could not amount to defamation absent false factual imputations.

Referring to several previous rulings of the Supreme Court, the High Court remarked that “Constitutionally, all three posts fall within the protection of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Restrictions under Article 19(2) apply only in narrow circumstances such as defamation, incitement to violence, or imminent threat to public order. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), and Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) has consistently affirmed the high level of protection granted to political expression in a democracy.”

The Court also took note of the recurrent procedural lapses in filing such cases, holding that criminal defamation, being a non-cognizable offence, could not be investigated without a Magistrate’s order, and that FIRs based on third-party complaints were procedurally incompetent.

Directions to Police Authorities & Judicial Magistrates

Before parting, the Court issued the following "operational guidelines" for police authorities and Judicial Magistrates when dealing with proceedings initiated on the basis of social media posts:

• The police must verify the locus standi of the complainant before registering an FIR in cases of alleged defamation, only when the complaint qualifies as the person aggrieved.
• A preliminary enquiry must be conducted before registration of FIRs in cases where a representation/complaint discloses a cognizable offence.
• High threshold for media post/speech-related offences to be applied in line with the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015)
• Allegations relating to political criticism should not result in registration of FIRs except when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order, may criminal law may be invoked.
• Since criminal defamation is a non-cognizable offence, the complainant must be directed to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. Police action may follow only upon a specific order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS.
• In cases where arrests are contemplated, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar must be strictly adhered to.
• In matters involving political speech, police shall obtain prior legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor before registering an FIR. 
• Where a complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or politically motivated, the police shall close the matter under Section 176(1) of the BNSS.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Court quashed the FIRs registered against the petitioners, holding that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Cause Title: Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Appearances
Petitioners: Adv. T.V. Ramana Rao
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao

Click here to read/download Judgement