“Mere offensive or critical content, without intent to cause prohibited consequences, cannot be grounds for criminal prosecution,” the court observed.
Published Sep 10, 2025 | 11:12 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 10, 2025 | 11:13 PM
The Telangana High Court. Credit: tshc.gov.in/
Synopsis: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday quashed three FIRs registered against BRS social media activist Nalla Balu, holding that his posts critical of the Congress government and Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy constituted protected political speech. While the tweets were harsh and offensive, they did not amount to incitement, obscenity, or cognisable defamation, the court held, as it issued guidelines to prevent the misuse of criminal law in cases involving political expression.
In a ruling that could set an important precedent for freedom of expression, the Telangana High Court has quashed three criminal cases against Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) social media activist Nalla Balu, also known as Durgam Shashidhar Goud, holding that his online posts criticising the ruling Congress party and Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy were protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
A single judge bench, comprising of Justice N Tukaramji on Wednesday, 10 September, delivered a common order quashing three FIRs registered earlier this year by the state’s cybercrime and local police units.
The court held that the impugned tweets, though harsh and offensive in tone, amounted to political criticism rather than criminal conduct.
Welcoming the verdict, BRS Working President KT Rama Rao said the ruling was a “resounding slap on the face of the Congress government which has been harassing BRS leaders and social media activists for the past 21 months by slapping frivolous and false cases.”
“In the light of this judgment, I request Telangana DGP Jitender and Director of the Telangana Cyber Security Bureau, Shika Goel, to stop targeting and harassing BRS leaders, cadre and social media warriors,” KTR said.
He assured that the BRS would stand by and protect all those “toiling hard to bring KCR back to power.”
The FIRs arose from three separate complaints. In one, Balu was accused of calling the Congress party a “scourge” and comparing it to a pest that disturbs people’s lives.
Another case related to his post alleging “20 percent commission” in the Congress government under Chief Minister Revanth. A third FIR originated from tweets that allegedly used vulgar and abusive language against the chief minister.
In all three cases, the complaints were lodged by private individuals or police personnel, not by the chief minister or any directly aggrieved party.
Police invoked provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including provocation to riot, intentional insult, and defamation, as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which penalises obscene online content.
The defence counsel argued that these cases were politically motivated and aimed at silencing criticism. They stressed that defamation, if at all, could only be pursued through a complaint by the person defamed and not by unrelated third parties.
The posts, they said, were part of legitimate political debate and did not incite violence or cause public disorder.
The state’s public prosecutor, however, told the court that Balu was a repeat offender in several social media-related cases and that his refusal to comply with police notices showed deliberate disregard for the law.
The prosecution insisted that his tweets were meant to provoke unrest and damage the government’s credibility.
After reviewing the evidence, the High Court sided with the petitioner. Justice Tukaramji noted that while social media posts can, in some cases, cross the line into criminal offences such as defamation, hate speech, or incitement, the posts in question did not meet that threshold.
“Mere offensive or critical content, without intent to cause prohibited consequences, cannot be grounds for criminal prosecution,” the court observed.
The judgment clarified the scope of several provisions under the BNS. The post comparing Congress to a pest, it said, was metaphorical political criticism that could not be stretched to mean provocation to riot or intentional insult.
The “20 percent commission” allegation, while more pointed, was still in the realm of political criticism, protected under free speech. The allegedly abusive remarks, the court held, might be distasteful but did not qualify as obscene material under the IT Act.
At best, they could be seen as defamation, which is non-cognisable and requires a direct complaint from the aggrieved party.
The court found that the FIRs were registered mechanically and without legal basis, and issued a set of operational guidelines to prevent misuse of criminal law in matters involving social media posts and political speech.
The directions include verifying whether the complainant has the legal standing to file a case, ensuring preliminary inquiries before registering FIRs, applying a high threshold for cases linked to speech, and protecting political criticism unless it directly incites violence.
The court also reminded police that defamation is non-cognisable and that arrests in such matters must follow the proportionality principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Importantly, it directed that frivolous or politically motivated complaints must be closed at the earliest stage.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
