The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to author and social commentator Madhu Purnima Kishwar in a case relating to an alleged defamatory social media post concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi, holding that investigation materials justified continuation of the probe and pre-arrest protection was unwarranted.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to author and social commentator Madhu Purnima Kishwar in a case arising from a social media post allegedly containing defamatory and misleading material relating to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Justice Aman Chaudhary, sitting as a single judge Bench, dismissed Kishwar’s plea for pre-arrest protection on Friday. The Court held that the material collected during the investigation disclosed sufficient grounds to continue the probe and that the case did not warrant the exercise of extraordinary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR registered against Kishwar after she allegedly re-posted a video on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). According to the prosecution, the video had initially appeared on other digital platforms before being shared by the petitioner.
Investigating authorities alleged that the video was accompanied by commentary that generated widespread public discussion and reaction. The Court noted that after being shared by Kishwar, who commands a substantial online following, the content reportedly gained significant traction and crossed approximately 1.74 lakh views.
ALSO READ: 2014 Defamation Case: Rahul Gandhi Submits New Surety in Bhiwandi Court
The authorities further claimed that the circulation of the video led to speculation concerning a constitutional functionary and resulted in reputational harm.
The FIR invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act. The allegations include offences relating to promoting enmity between groups, cheating, forgery, use of forged electronic records, publication of statements likely to cause public mischief, and criminal defamation.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner’s role was not merely passive, as her substantial social media reach allegedly contributed to amplifying the circulation of the content and increasing its visibility among the public.
Arguments and Observations of Court
The status report filed on behalf of the Union Territory of Chandigarh stated that the video originated from another user and was subsequently circulated across various social media platforms.
However, the prosecution argued that Kishwar’s decision to re-share the content significantly increased its reach due to her large follower base. Authorities maintained that the re-posting contributed to the wider dissemination of allegedly misleading information and intensified its impact.
The prosecution further contended that the petitioner’s social media following, estimated at around 18 lakh users, gave her considerable influence over public discourse, thereby increasing her responsibility while sharing content online.
ALSO READ: Court Defers Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case to April 3: “Lawyers Were on Strike”
A major factor considered by the High Court was the petitioner’s alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation. The Court recorded that notices were issued to Kishwar on multiple occasions, including April 20, April 26 and May 5, 2026, requiring her participation in the investigation.
Despite these notices, the investigating agency informed the Court that she had not joined the investigation, whereas other individuals named in the case had appeared before the authorities and cooperated with the probe.
The Court took note of this aspect while assessing whether anticipatory bail should be granted at the current stage of the proceedings. While rejecting the plea, the High Court drew a distinction between constitutionally protected criticism and content capable of creating public mischief or social discord.
The Court observed that there exists a clear distinction between legitimate criticism and content that is capable of creating public mischief, incitement or social disharmony, particularly when disseminated by individuals with significant digital reach.
The Bench noted that social media platforms possess an unparalleled ability to spread information rapidly and on a massive scale. Consequently, users with substantial online influence must exercise greater caution before publishing or forwarding content that could potentially mislead the public or provoke reactions.
The Court emphasized that the consequences of misinformation can extend far beyond the original publication and may have implications for public order and communal harmony.
Another factor weighing against the grant of anticipatory bail was the ongoing nature of the investigation. The Court observed that the probe remains at a nascent stage and several important aspects are yet to be examined by the investigating agency.
These include determining the origin of the video, tracing the chain of dissemination, identifying the role of other individuals involved in its circulation, and examining whether a broader conspiracy may have existed. In view of these unresolved issues, the Court held that it would be premature to conclude that no prima facie offence was made out.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that Kishwar had merely re-posted a short video and had no intention to defame anyone or spread misleading information. It was submitted that she could not be held criminally responsible for comments subsequently made by third parties in response to the post.
The defence also contended that offences relating to forgery were not attracted because Kishwar was not the creator of the original video and had played no role in its production or alteration. Further, it was argued that she had no criminal antecedents and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
After considering the submissions from both sides, the High Court declined to extend the protection of anticipatory bail. The Court concluded that the allegations required further investigation and that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out at this stage. It held that the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s alleged non-cooperation with investigators, and the ongoing probe into the source and dissemination of the content justified continuation of the investigation without pre-arrest protection.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by Madhu Purnima Kishwar was dismissed, allowing the investigating agency to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
The case is expected to continue as investigators examine the origin of the disputed video, the manner in which it was circulated, and the extent of the petitioner’s role in its dissemination.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE