critical-tweets-come-under-free-speech-telangana-hc

In a significant ruling that could have a bearing on the debate over freedom of expression, the Telangana High Court has held that critical comments against the governments or their leaders, however offensive and caustic they may be, are protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

“Mere offensive or critical content, without intent to cause prohibited consequences, cannot be grounds for criminal prosecution,” the court observed.

While striking down FIRs filed against tweets criticising the ruling Congress Party and Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, the Court has reaffirmed that political speech, however caustic, is protected under Article 19(1)(a).

“Mere political criticism, however harsh, cannot attract criminal sanction,” the single-judge bench, comprising  Justice N Tukaramji, ruled.

The judge quashed three criminal cases filed against the opposition Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) social media activist Nalla Balu, also known as Durgam Shashidhar Goud, holding that his online posts criticising the ruling party and Chief Minister were protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

The FIRs were 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.

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.

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.

Safeguards on political speech cases

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.

The court established a high ceiling for speech-related crimes, stating that cases cannot be registered unless there’s prima facie evidence of incitement to violence. It stressed that the Constitution protects political speech and that the police should not mechanically register cases based on it.

The judgment also specified that since defamation is a non-cognisable offence, the police cannot directly file an FIR. Additionally, it called for legal scrutiny before filing FIRs in sensitive cases and a crackdown on politically motivated or frivolous complaints.

The judge stated, “Police shall not register an FIR mechanically for political posts or speech. The posts/speech should contain elements of incitement to violence or public disorder. The constitutional protection for political speech is sacrosanct.”

The court also sternly cautioned against arbitrary arrests, directing police to strictly adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court which prohibits automatic and mechanical arrests.

BRS welcomes ruling

Welcoming the verdict, the 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.

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 Reddy. 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 prosecution insisted that his tweets were meant to provoke unrest and damage the government’s credibility.