Telangana HC quashes case for tweets against Congress; lays down guidelines for FIRs on social media posts

The Telangana High Court on Wednesday laid down guidelines for the police and trial courts to adhere to when handling criminal cases filed for social media posts on politics and political figures/ leaders [Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud v. State of Telangana].

Justice N Tukaramji passed the order while quashing three criminal cases filed against the account holder of X (formerly Twitter) handle @Nallabalu over tweets that criticised the Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy-led Congress government in the State.

The Court found that the tweets, though critical, fall squarely within the ambit of legitimate political expression.

The Court proceeded to issue guidelines to ensure that such comments are not unduly criminalised in the future.

These include a requirement for the police to get a prior legal opinion from the public prosecutor before registering any criminal case in relation to a political speech or post, to ensure that the proposed action is legally sustainable.

The case before the Court concerned three tweets:

One tweet stated, “Congress is the scourge of the DState! If the field is affected by the pest, the people will be disturbed.”

A second one 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."

The third allegedly contained vulgar content that targeted Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.

Three criminal cases were registered over the same earlier this year, citing offences such as wantonly giving provocation with an intent to cause a riot, public mischief, intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace, defamation and publication of obscene content online.

This prompted the tweet's author - Nalla Balu alias Durgam Shashidhar Goud - to approach the High Court with petitions to quash the same.

On September 10, the High Court held that all three X/ Twitter posts fell within the scope of constitutionally protected free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Tukaramji went on to note that the Supreme Court in various cases has consistently affirmed the high level of protection granted to political expression in a democracy.

"The impugned tweets, such as 'Congress is the scourge…' and 'No Vision, No Mission…' are plainly political criticism and satire, which do not amount to defamation or public mischief and are fully protected by Article 19(1)(a). The third tweet, though allegedly vulgar or abusive towards the Chief Minister, cannot be equated with defamation absent false factual imputations," the Court concluded.

It proceeded to issue the following guidelines for the police and judicial magistrates to follow while dealing with criminal proceedings initiated based on social media posts, particularly when FIRs are sought to be registered in such matters.

The guidelines issued by the Court include:

1. Before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences, the police must verify whether the complainant qualifies as the “person aggrieved” in terms of law. Complaints by unrelated third parties lacking standing are not maintainable, except where the report concerns a cognizable offence.

2. Where a representation/ complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police shall, prior to registration of crime, conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out.

3. High threshold for media post/ speech-related offences: No case alleging promotion of enmity, intentional insult, public mischief, threat to public order, or sedition shall be registered unless there exists prima facie material disclosing incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder. This threshold must be applied in line with the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

4. The police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive or critical political speech unless there is incitement to violence or if the speech poses an imminent threat to public order. Constitutional protections for free political criticism must be scrupulously enforced.

5. Since defamation is a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot directly register an FIR or crime in such matters. The complainant must be directed to approach the jurisdictional magistrate. Police action may follow only upon a specific order of the magistrate.

6. Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible. Police must follow the guidelines on arrest laid down by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case.

7. In matters involving political speech/ posts or other sensitive forms of expression, the police shall obtain prior legal opinion from the public prosecutor before registering an FIR, to ensure that the proposed action is legally sustainable.

8. 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, citing absence of sufficient grounds for investigation

These guidelines were issued after the Court noted that in the present case, defamation proceedings were allowed to be initiated based on complaints by third parties, not the aggrieved person.

This violated the requirements laid down in the procedural criminal law, namely the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when it came to the prosecution of a person for defamation.

It further found that the mechanical registration of FIRs in this case, without any preliminary inquiry, violated the Supreme Court's binding judgment in the Lalita Kumari case.

Advocate TV Ramana Rao appeared for the petitioner.

Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao represented the Telangana government.

[Read Order]