Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Telangana High Court has quashed three FIRs against a BRS worker over social media posts critical of Chief Minister Revanth Reddy and the Congress government in the state, saying the posts were “political criticism and satire” fully protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which grants the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The court further laid down guidelines over registering FIRs based on social media posts to prevent ‘arbitrary’ arrests and safeguard freedom of expression.
“The police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech,” Justice Tukaramji said in his order. Defending the right to speech, he said that “mere political criticism, however harsh, cannot attract criminal sanction.”
Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) worker Durgam Shashidhar Goud, who identifies himself as ‘Nalla Balu’ on X and is popular on the social media platform, was arrested in June by the Telangana police for criticising Chief Minister Revanth Reddy and the Telangana Congress government.
Of the three FIRs quashed by the court, the first was related to a post criticising the Congress party. The post said, “Congress is the scourge of the state! If the field is affected by the pest, the people will be disturbed.”
The second case was over a post shared with a photo of CM Revanth, which said: “No Vision, No Mission, Only 20% Commission! This is how the 15-month rule of the Revanth Reddy led Congress Government is in Telangana,” insinuating that the government was taking 20% commissions as bribes for contracts.
The third post which was not reproduced in the order had “allegedly vulgar and abusive messages” targeting CM Revanth Reddy.
The FIRs were registered under Sections 192 (provocation with intent to cause riot), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 61 (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) and other offences.
The judge observed that continuing prosecution in these cases would be justified if these offences were established, but otherwise, “mere political criticism, however harsh, cannot attract criminal sanction.”
The first post, which calls the Congress party a “scourge” and a “pest,” “is harsh and metaphorical but constitutes political criticism,” the judge said. It cannot attract charges involving breach of peace or public mischief “as there is no imminent threat of public disorder,” the order said.
The second post alleging “20% commission” might be seen as defamation against CM Revanth and Congress, but since the criticism is political and not communal or provocative, charges of causing riot, breach of peace etc. don’t apply, the High Court said.
The third post with “vulgar and abusive remarks” on CM Revanth may be seen as defamation, but Section 67 of the IT Act doesn’t apply as the remarks are not “obscene,” the order said.
“Constitutionally, all three posts fall within the protection of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression,” the judge said.
Even if Nalla Balu were to be charged with defamation for some of his posts, the complaint must be made by the aggrieved person as per the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and not some third parties, the order said.
It said that the first two posts were “plainly political criticism and satire,” and the third tweet, “though allegedly vulgar or abusive” towards CM Revanth, “cannot be equated with defamation absent false factual imputations.”
Issuing guidelines to the police for registering FIRs over social media posts, the court said that the police must first verify if the complainant qualifies as the “person aggrieved” and isn’t some unrelated third party except in case of a cognizable offence.
Even for cognizable offences, police must conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR, the court said.
A higher threshold must be applied for cases involving speech or social media posts, so that no case alleging promotion of enmity, intentional insult, public mischief, threat to public order, or sedition is registered without prima facie basis.
The guidelines extend added protection to political speech. “The police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech. Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may criminal law be invoked.”
In cases of defamation, since it’s a non-cognizable offence, police must register an FIR only if there’s a Magistrate’s order.
The guidelines also asked police to comply with the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines laid down to prevent unnecessary arrests in cases involving a maximum sentence of under seven years.
In sensitive cases involving political speech or posts, police must take legal opinion from a public prosecutor before registering an FIR. Complaints found to be frivolous or politically motivated must be closed citing absence of sufficient grounds for investigation, the court said.