Social media arrests: SC upholds Telangana HC directions; restrains arbitrary FIR, mechanical arrests

In a significant move aimed at curbing arbitrary arrests for social media posts, the Supreme Court has upheld a Telangana high court order which mandates prior inquiry and verification of the legitimacy of a complaint instead of “mechanically” registering cases concerning political criticism on social media. 

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi of the apex court on February 2 dismissed a petition by the Telangana government challenging the high court’s quashing of three FIRs against an activist named Shashidhar Goud (Nalla Balu) over social media posts shared by him. Goud was arrested in June 2025 for resharing content from the Bharat Rashtra Sena (BRS)’s official X handle and for posts critical of the Congress government and chief minister A Revanth Reddy.

One of his X posts stated, “Congress is the scourge of the state! If the field is affected by the pest, the people will be disturbed.” In another post, he shared an image of chief minister Reddy with the caption, “No Vision, No Mission. Only 20% Commission! This is how the 15-month rule of the Revanth Reddy-led Congress government in Telangana has been.” 

In September, the Telangana high court quashed the FIRs against him, referencing Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which granted citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. The court observed that Goud’s tweets amounted to political criticism and though harsh, they could not attract criminal sanction. While striking down the FIRs, Justice N Tukaramji had also laid down operational guidelines for police in such cases. The detailed order can be read here.

The state moved the SC arguing that the guidelines were inconsistent with one another and urged the top court to review and correct them. After examining the High Court judgment and the accompanying guidelines, the SC bench decided not to interfere with the impugned judgment or the High Court, including the guidelines that were issued.   

Key Points in Telangana HC Order Upheld by the SC

1. Verification of locus standi:  “Before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences, the police must verify whether the complainant qualifies as the ‘person aggrieved’ in terms of law. Complaints by unrelated third parties lacking standing are not maintainable, except where the report concerns a cognizable offence.”

The Telangana HC ruling stated that before registering a FIR for defamation or a similar offence, police must verify whether the complainant has a locus standi, that is the legal right to file the complaint. Typically, only the person aggrieved, that is, the individual whose reputation is allegedly harmed, can submit such a complaint. If an unrelated third party, who is not directly affected by the alleged defamation, files the complaint, it should not be considered or registered. The only exception lies if the complaint discloses a “cognizable offence” for which the police can act without permission of the court, even if the complainant is not the person directly affected. 

2. Preliminary inquiry in cognizable offences:  “Where a representation/complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police shall, prior to registration of crime, conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out.”

If there is a complaint or report that seems to involve a cognizable offence, police cannot immediately register a crime. First, they must conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there are sufficient legal elements of the alleged offence. Only if the inquiry suggests that the complaint is valid, can they formally register a case. 

3. High threshold for media post/speech-related offences:  “No case alleging promotion of enmity, intentional insult, public mischief, threat to public order, or sedition shall be registered unless there exists prima facie material disclosing incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder. This threshold must be applied in line with the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.”

The courts observed that police cannot file an FIR simply because someone finds a social media post or public speech offensive or insulting. This includes issues such as “promotion of enmity, intentional insults, public mischief, threats to public order, or sedition”. An FIR can only be registered if there is prima facie evidence that the speech genuinely incites violence, hatred, or public disorder. 

4. Protection of political speech/post: “The police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech. Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may criminal law be invoked. Constitutional protections for free political criticism under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution must be scrupulously enforced.”

The guidelines set by Telangana HC explicitly prohibit mechanical registration of FIRs. It is stated that just because a political post or statement is unpleasant, insulting, unpopular, or strongly critical of a political party —especially the government — police cannot automatically register a criminal case, as such speech is protected by the Indian Constitution. 

Even if the speech is harsh, critical, offensive, or provocative, that alone is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings. There must be initial evidence indicating that the speech is likely to provoke violence, hatred, or disrupt public order before an FIR can be filed.

5. Defamation as a non-cognizable offence: Since defamation is classified as a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot directly register an FIR or crime in such matters. The complainant must be directed to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. Police action may follow only upon a specific order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS. 

In cases of defamation, which is classified as a non-cognizable offence, police cannot act on their own. The aggrieved person, or complainant, must approach the jurisdiction magistrate and file a private complaint. After examining the complaint, the magistrate may issue a specific order directing police action, but only if they find the complaint to be valid, according to Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita.

As mentioned earlier, the HC observed that even if Nalla Balu was to be charged with defamation, the complaint has to come from the aggrieved person as per the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and not some third parties.

6. Compliance with arrest guidelines: In all cases, police shall strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014. Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed.

7. Prior legal scrutiny in sensitive cases: In matters involving political speech/post or other sensitive forms of expression, the police shall obtain prior legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor before registering an FIR, to ensure that the proposed action is legally sustainable. 

8. Frivolous or motivated complaints: Where a complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or politically motivated, the police shall close the matter under Section 176(1) of the BNSS, citing absence of sufficient grounds for investigation.”