Published Feb 02, 2026 | 4:02 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 02, 2026 | 4:02 PM
Supreme Court of India. Credit: iStock
Synopsis: Supreme Court upheld the Telangana High Court’s landmark ruling that quashed FIRs against activist Nalla Balu over critical social media posts, reinforcing free speech protections. HC guidelines restrict arbitrary FIRs, mandate preliminary inquiry, and bar police from registering defamation cases directly. The judgment curbs misuse of criminal law, affirming dissent as constitutionally protected unless inciting violence.
In a crucial judgment on protection of free speech, the Supreme Court on Monday, 2 February, dismissed the Telangana government’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a landmark decision of the Telangana High Court that had set strict safeguards on the registration of criminal cases arising from social media posts.
The High Court’s original order came in September 2025 while hearing petitions filed by social media activist Nalla Balu (also known as Durgam Shashidhar Goud), who was facing multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the Telangana Cyber Security police for alleged offences including provocation to riot, public mischief, defamation and circulation of obscene content over posts critical of the state government and its policies.
The case relates to the arrest of Nalla Balu for allegedly retweeting content from the official BRS party social media handle.
A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, after hearing the arguments from both sides, rejected the state government’s plea and upheld the High Court order.
In September last year, the High Court quashed all three FIRs against Nalla Balu and issued a set of operational guidelines for police and magistrates to prevent arbitrary arrests and misuse of criminal law in cases involving political speech.
The High Court held that mere political criticism, however harsh, falls within the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, unless the speech incites violence or poses an imminent threat to public order.
The guidelines directed that before registering an FIR over a social-media post, the police must verify whether the complainant is the “aggrieved person”, conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie offence is made out, and ensure that offences such as criminal defamation — a non-cognisable offence — cannot be registered through routine FIRs.
Dissatisfied with these directions, the Telangana government approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order quashing FIRs and the accompanying procedural safeguards.
In September last year, Justice N Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed the three FIRs registered against Nalla Balu over posts on X that were critical of the state government and the CM. The FIRs had been filed by the Cyber Security Bureau and local police stations under various provisions alleging defamation, intentional insult, public mischief, and other offences.
The court underscored that mechanical or indiscriminate registration of FIRs based on social media posts “without preliminary inquiry” is contrary to constitutional principles and established Supreme Court precedents such as Kedar Nath Singh and Shreya Singhal.
As part of the judgment, the High Court issued a comprehensive set of operational guidelines binding on police authorities and judicial magistrates across Telangana for handling complaints and FIRs arising from social media posts and online speech.
These guidelines were intended to tread a careful balance between enforcement of law and protection of free expression rights, and include:
The court made it clear that the criminal justice system cannot be used as an instrument to curb dissent or muzzle political debate, which is vital in the interests of democracy.
(Edited by Amit Vasudev)
