Telangana HC Issues Guidelines for Social Media-Linked Cases

While hearing a defamation case seeking the quashing of FIRs for objectionable content posted on social media, the Telangana High Court issued detailed operational guidelines for authorities handling proceedings arising from social media posts.

In Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud v. State of Telangana (CRP Nos. 4903, 4905 and 8416 of 2025), the Court quashed FIRs filed against an individual accused of posting defamatory content on the platform “X” (formerly Twitter) with the alleged intent to provoke public unrest, malign the Chief Minister, and disturb public tranquility.

The allegations included provocation to commit rioting, fabrication of false evidence, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, circulation of statements conducive to public mischief, and defamation. The Court, however, viewed the impugned tweets as political criticism and satire protected under Article 19(1)(a), holding that they did not constitute defamation or public mischief. It further emphasized that defamation being a non-cognizable offence, FIRs could not be registered without compliance with Section 174 BNSS and an order of the Magistrate. Additionally, the tweets did not disclose obscenity under Section 67 of the IT Act, nor did they amount to public mischief (Section 353 BNS) or provocation to riot (Sections 191/192 BNS). The Court also noted that the mechanical registration of FIRs, without preliminary inquiry, contravened the binding principles laid down in Lalita Kumari.

To safeguard fundamental rights and prevent arbitrary use of the criminal process, the Court laid down operational guidelines for police authorities and Judicial Magistrates in cases involving social media posts:

• Locus standi verification: Police must confirm whether the complainant qualifies as a “person aggrieved” in law, except in cognizable offences.
• Preliminary inquiry: In cognizable cases, an inquiry must ascertain whether statutory ingredients of the offence are, prima facie, satisfied.
• Higher threshold for speech-related offences: Consistent with Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
• Protection of political speech: Criminal law may be invoked only when speech incites violence or poses an imminent threat to public order.
• Defamation as non-cognizable: Police cannot directly register FIRs in defamation matters; complainants must approach the jurisdictional Magistrate.
• Compliance with arrest safeguards: As mandated in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).
• Prior legal scrutiny: In sensitive cases, police must seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor before registering an FIR to ensure legal tenability.
• Frivolous or motivated complaints: Complaints found to be vexatious, frivolous, or politically motivated must be closed under Section 176(1) BNSS.

In an environment where criminal cases are often filed to stifle dissent, these guidelines serve as a vital safeguard for freedom of expression and reinforce the democratic fabric by protecting the constitutional rights of critics.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Supreme Court recently directed the Union government to frame draft guidelines for regulating social media conductv, particularly in light of the growing commercialisation of free expression by influencers. The Court also contemplated issuing norms to curb “divisive tendencies” on virtual platforms, stressing that citizens must recognize the “value of freedom of speech and expression” and exercise self-restraint; otherwise, state intervention would become inevitable. At the same time, the Court underscored that social media posts should not be taken down without first affording the individuals who published them an opportunity to respond.