The Telangana High Court struck down three criminal cases against an X user for tweets critical of CM Revanth Reddy’s Congress government, ruling them protected free speech. The Court also laid down strict guidelines for police and magistrates on handling FIRs in social media cases.
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday gave an important ruling on how police and trial courts should handle criminal cases that are filed over social media posts, especially when they are about politics or political leaders.
The order came in the case Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud v. State of Telangana, where Justice N Tukaramji quashed three criminal cases registered against the X (formerly Twitter) account holder @Nallabalu.
These cases were filed because of tweets that criticised the Congress government led by Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy.
The Court made it clear that the tweets, though sharp and critical, are part of legitimate political expression and fully protected under the Constitution.
Justice Tukaramji also issued a set of guidelines so that such political comments are not wrongly treated as crimes in the future.
The case was about three tweets. The first tweet said,
“Congress is the scourge of the DState! If the field is affected by the pest, the people will be disturbed.”
The second one stated,
“No Vision, No Mission, Only 20% Commission! This is how the 15-month rule of the Revanth Reddy-led Congress Government is in Telangana.”
The third tweet was said to contain vulgar remarks against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.
Three criminal cases were filed earlier this year citing offences like provocation to cause riot, public mischief, intentional insult, defamation, and publishing obscene content online. Nalla Balu then approached the High Court seeking to quash these cases.
On September 10, the Court held that all the tweets were constitutionally protected free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Justice Tukaramji explained that the Supreme Court has always recognised political expression as being highly protected in a democracy.
The judge observed,
“The impugned tweets, such as ‘Congress is the scourge…’ and ‘No Vision, No Mission…’ are plainly political criticism and satire, which do not amount to defamation or public mischief and are fully protected by Article 19(1)(a). The third tweet, though allegedly vulgar or abusive towards the Chief Minister, cannot be equated with defamation absent false factual imputations.”
The Court then laid down detailed guidelines for the police and magistrates to follow when they deal with cases related to political comments or social media posts.
The first guideline says that before filing an FIR for defamation or similar offences, the police must check if the complainant is truly the “person aggrieved.” If an unrelated third party files the complaint, it will not be maintainable unless it is about a cognizable offence.
Second, if a complaint looks like it involves a cognizable offence, the police must conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering a case to see if the offence is really made out.
Third, for cases relating to speech or media posts, the Court stressed a high threshold. It said that no case about enmity, insult, public mischief, threats to public order, or sedition should be filed unless there is clear material showing incitement to violence, hatred or disorder.
This standard must be applied according to earlier rulings like Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
Fourth, the police must not simply register cases just because the speech is harsh or offensive. Unless the post incites violence or is an immediate threat to public order, political criticism must be protected.
Fifth, since defamation is a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot directly register an FIR. The complainant has to go to the magistrate, and police can act only if the magistrate orders them to.
Sixth, the Court reminded that arrests cannot be done automatically or mechanically. Police must follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case.
Seventh, in sensitive matters involving political speech or posts, the police must get a prior legal opinion from the public prosecutor before filing any FIR, to make sure the action has a legal basis.
Eighth, if the complaint is found to be frivolous, false or politically motivated, the police should close the matter under Section 176(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), mentioning that there are no sufficient grounds to investigate.
The Court pointed out that in this case, the defamation proceedings were wrongly allowed based on complaints made by third parties who were not “aggrieved persons.”
This went against the procedure in criminal law under the BNSS. It also found that the FIRs were registered mechanically without any preliminary inquiry, which directly violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lalita Kumari case.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate TV Ramana Rao, while Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao appeared for the Telangana government.
This ruling is important because it reinforces that sharp political criticism, satire, or even offensive comments cannot be treated as crimes unless they cross the line into violence, disorder or false factual accusations. It also ensures that free political expression remains safeguarded in India under Article 19(1)(a).
Case Title:
Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud v. State of Telangana
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Social Media
