Telangana High Court Bars Mechanical FIRs Over 'Harsh Political Speeches', Lays Down Guidelines For Cases Linked To Social Media Posts

The Telangana High Court has directed the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches", adding that in case of social media posts FIR for promotion of enmity, threat to public order, or sedition can be registered only if there exists a prima facie case.  

The court also emphasized that in matters involving political speech, prior legal opinion shall be obtained before registration of FIR. 

Justice N Tukaramji issued a set of comprehensive guidelines to be followed with a view to  safeguarding fundamental rights as well as preventing the criminal process from being invoked mechanically or arbitrarily. 

The court passed the order while quashing three FIRs registered against one Nalla Balu over his posts on X criticising the Congress party lodged under Sections 192(Wanton provocation with intent to cause riot), 353(1)(b)(Statements conducing to public mischief), 352(– Intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 356 (defamation) read with Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of BNS. The petitioner was accused of engaging in political criticism of the ruling party and government, and using allegedly vulgar or abusive remarks against the Chief Minister.

The court thus said that is appropriate to prescribe a set of operational guidelines for police authorities and Judicial Magistrates when dealing with proceedings initiated on the basis of social media posts. The court clarified that these directions are particularly relevant in cases where the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) is sought in connection with such posts.

i. Verification of locus standi:

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.

ii. Preliminary inquiry in cognizable offences:

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

iii. 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, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.

iv. Protection of political speech/post:

"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. Constitutional protections for free political criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must be scrupulously enforced"

v. Defamation as a non-cognizable offence:

Since defamation is classified as 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 under Section 174(2) of the BNSS.

vi. Compliance with arrest guidelines, no automatic arrest

In all cases, the police shall strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

"Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed."

vii. Prior legal scrutiny in sensitive cases:

"In matters involving political speech/post 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"

viii. Frivolous or motivated complaints:

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.

The court after perusing the petitioner's social media posts found that though they were critical, it fell squarely within the ambit of legitimate political expression.

"In the absence of statutory ingredients of the alleged offences, the registration of FIRs without requisite enquiry or judicial approval is unsustainable in law, and continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are liable to be allowed". 

The petitioner claimed that complaints against him were devoid of specific particulars regarding the allegedly obscene content, the precise dates of posting, or any actual impact on public order and the police reports were filed belatedly, rendering the proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable.

The court said:

"In conclusion, the impugned posts do not attract the application of Sections 192, 352, or 353(1)(b) of BNS nor Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. At best, they may fall within the limited ambit of defamation under Section 356 read with Section 61(2) BNS. Even in that context, however, the availability of statutory exceptions, such as truth for the public good and fair comment, as well as the robust constitutional safeguards for political expression, provide a strong shield to the petitioner. Consequently, any attempt to prosecute the petitioner under provisions other than defamation would be legally unsustainable. More importantly, the present criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of police reports filed by third parties, and not through a complaint by the aggrieved person, as mandatorily required under the BNSS framework for prosecuting defamation. In the absence of locus standi of the complainant, the continuation of these proceedings would be not only improper but also untenable in law". 

Case title: Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud vs The State of Telangana and Anr. and batch

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 4905, 4903 & 8416 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order