‘Abusive posts against Prime Minister illegal’: Tripura High Court refuses to quash cases

“The Prime Minister holds a high constitutional office in India, and while political criticism is part of democracy, posting abusive, defamatory, or derogatory language targeting the Prime Minister on social media is illegal. Law enforcement actively monitors and takes legal action against such offensive content under Indian law. Police can register an FIR under laws covering defamation, public mischief, and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace,” the court said.

The bench noted that from the contents of the FIR, it is seen that the petitioner has used derogatory words against the Prime Minister of India and the Mayor of the State with an intention to defame them globally.

Alleged use of abusive language for PM

The court was dealing with two petitions filed by Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty, a content creator, seeking quashing of FIRs registered at East Agartala and West Agartala police stations, along with the chargesheets filed in the cases.

Justices T Amarnath Goud and S Datta Purkayastha declined to quash the FIRs and the chargesheets against a Tripura woman termed to be a content creator.

According to the complaints, the petitioner had allegedly used abusive, derogatory and critical language against the Prime Minister of India, and had also allegedly made objectionable remarks about the Mayor of Agartala and Mata Tripureshwari.

She was arrested in connection with the allegations and was subsequently granted interim bail by the high court on January 7. Chargesheets were later filed in both cases, and she was granted permanent bail on February 13.

The petitioner then approached the high court, contending that the FIRs did not disclose the ingredients of criminal defamation. She claimed that her statements were merely expressions of opinion, protected by freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), and alleged that the proceedings were politically motivated.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had deliberately made derogatory remarks against the Prime Minister of India and had hurt the sentiments of people by making objectionable statements about Mata Tripureswari.

It maintained that a prima facie case had emerged during the investigation and that the matter should be decided at trial rather than by quashing the proceedings.

Freedom of speech not to protect abusive content: Order

The order said that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it does not protect the publication of defamatory, abusive, or malicious content on social media. “It is trite law that free expression is not a license to ruin reputation, and such a person can face legal consequences for spreading false statements online. Posting false assertions, running malicious campaigns, or sharing unverified allegations online can trigger civil suits for damages or criminal prosecution,” it added. 

The court noted that in the modern era, social media has become an integral part of the lives of the people, and the same is used to communicate, share information, and connect. 

“False information can spread quickly on social media platforms and ultimately cause damage to a person’s reputation in a short period of time. In recent times, most of the people have begun to express their viewpoints on various topics, and simultaneously, the same is used for cyber defamation to defame others online,” it added. 

The court further observed that an outline from the statements used by the petitioner drew criticism against the PM and Mayor by mocking their name and surname and also, to some extent, hurt the sentiment of the people of the State who worship Mata Tripureswari. It held that such statements could constitute defamation, leaving the complainants free to pursue their remedies. 

“Such unprivileged statement made by the petitioners caused harm to the personal and professional reputation of the Prime Minister and the Mayor of the State and the same can constitute defamation. The complainants, therefore, retain their right to sue for defamation,” it said.