The Telangana High Court Wednesday quashed three criminal cases against Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) social media activist Nalla Balu, also known as Durgam Shashidhar Goud. The judgment, delivered by Justice N Tukaramji, not only provided relief to the petitioner but also laid down a set of strict guidelines for police authorities on the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) related to social media posts.
The cases against Balu were registered based on his social media posts that were critical of the state government and Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. The court’s ruling stressed that politically critical or even harsh and offensive speech is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
“None of the tweets contain obscenity… nor do they disclose elements of public mischief… or provocation to riot… Additionally, the mechanical registration of FIRs in this case, without preliminary enquiry, is in violation of the binding dicta in Lalita Kumari,” the order said.
The Telangana High Court issued a set of guidelines for the police handling social media cases. The court ruled that the police must verify if a complainant has a legal standing to file a complaint for defamation before registering an FIR. For serious offences, a preliminary inquiry is required to see if the legal elements of the crime are present.
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 defamation is a non-cognisable offence, so 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.”
Story continues below this ad
The court also sternly cautioned against arbitrary arrests, directing police to strictly adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which prohibits automatic and mechanical arrests.
