Political Criticism On Social Media Without Coercion Or Interference With Voting Not 'Undue Influence': Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a government school teacher accused of violating the Model Code of Conduct by posting derogatory comments against a political candidate on Facebook during the 2023 Assembly elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 100]

The Court held that mere political criticism or offensive social media posts, in the absence of coercion, intimidation or unlawful interference with voters, do not amount to the offence of "undue influence" at elections. It further observed that breach of the Model Code of Conduct, by itself, does not constitute a criminal offence unless a specific penal provision is attracted.

Allowing the plea, Justice N. Tukaramji observed:

"Merely criticising a candidate, expressing political opinions, or even employing offensive or intemperate language, however condemnable such conduct may be in the realm of political discourse, would not ipso facto amount to 'undue influence' within the meaning of Section 171-C IPC unless accompanied by elements of coercion, intimidation or unlawful interference with electoral freedom."

Section 171-C IPC defines "undue influence at elections" and contemplates voluntary interference or attempted interference with the free exercise of any electoral right. The Explanation appended to the provision clarifies that a declaration of public policy, a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with electoral freedom does not constitute undue influence.

The Court held that even if the prosecution case was accepted in its entirety, the essential ingredients of offences under Section 129 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (breach of official duty in maintaining secrecy of voting), Section 171-C IPC (undue influence at elections) and Section 505(1)(b) IPC (public mischief) were not made out. Holding that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an "abuse of the process of law", the Court quashed the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate.

The petitioner, a Government Teacher, was arraigned as the sole accused the case registered at Alampur Police Station. According to the complaint lodged by a BRS councillor during the Telangana Legislative Assembly elections, the petitioner uploaded Facebook posts describing the people of Alampur as "donkeys", the BRS candidate as a "donkey", and urged voters not to vote for the BRS party while the Model Code of Conduct was in force. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed alleging offences under Section 129 of the Representation of the People Act and Sections 171-C and 505(1)(b) IPC.

Examining the material collected during investigation, the Court found that while the prosecution had established that the petitioner was a Government Teacher, there was "no material whatsoever" to show that he had been appointed as a Returning Officer, Presiding Officer, Polling Officer, Counting Staff or any other person entrusted with duties attracting the obligation of maintaining secrecy under Sections 128 and 129 of the Representation of the People Act.

"Mere status as a Government servant or an allegation of violation of the Model Code of Conduct cannot, by itself, attract penal consequences under Section 129 of the Representation of the People Act," the Court observed, adding that "penal statutes must receive strict construction."

On the allegation of undue influence under Section 171-C IPC, the Court noted that the prosecution rested solely on the Facebook posts allegedly containing derogatory remarks against a political candidate and an appeal not to vote for a particular political party. However, there was "no allegation" that the petitioner threatened any voter, exercised coercion or social pressure, offered inducement, or prevented any elector from exercising the franchise. Equally, "no material" had been produced to show that any voter was actually influenced or restrained from exercising electoral rights because of the posts.

The Court also found that the offence under Section 505(1)(b) IPC was not attracted, observing that the prosecution had failed to produce any material indicating that the impugned posts were likely to cause fear or alarm, induce commission of offences, or disturb public tranquillity. Rather, the allegations disclosed only "political criticism and disparaging comments directed against a candidate and his supporters."

Significantly, the Court held that violation of the Model Code of Conduct by itself does not create criminal liability.

"Unless a specific statutory provision prescribing penal consequences is attracted, breach of the Model Code of Conduct by itself does not constitute a criminal offence," the Court observed, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar.

Referring to the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not prima facie constitute the alleged offences and that permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Case Title: P. Mohammed Iliyas v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7942 of 2024

Appearance: M/s. P. Amarender for the petitioner; Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; Mr. Ravendhar Malothu for respondent No.2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 100