Tripura High Court Refuses To Quash FIRs Against Content Creator Madhabi Biswas Accused Of Defaming PM Modi

The Tripura High Court has refused to quash two FIRs against content creator Madhabi Biswas accused of defaming and mocking Prime Minister Narendra Modi on social media, noting that her comments "prima facie" seemed to be misuse of freedom of speech and that further investigation was needed as the IO could not trace the alleged videos. 

A division bench of Justice Dr. T Amarnath Goud and Justice S Datta Purkayastha in its order said:

"In the instant case, the petitioner's comments prima facie seem to be a misuse of the liberties in the garb of freedom of speech through her mobile. The IO of the case has evidently seized the mobile phone of the petitioner and collected materials but, could not trace out the videos and sought substantial time to submit the videos, and to unearth the real face, further investigation is required...

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 FIR under laws covering defamation, public mischief, and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace"

The court observed social media has become an integral part of people's lives in modern era. It said that whole it is used to communicate, share information and connect each other, however false information can also spread quickly on social media platform and ultimately cause damage to a person's reputation in a short period of time.

"In recent time, most of the people begun to express their view points on various topics and simultaneously, the same is used to for cyber defamation to defame others online. From the contents of the FIR, it is seen that the petitioner has used derogatory words against the Prime Minister of India and Mayor of the State with an intention to defame them globally. An outline from the statements / words used by the petitioner drew criticism against the PM and Mayor by mocking at their name and surname and also to some extent hurt the sentiment of the people of State who worship Mata Tripureswari. 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," the court observed. 

The court further noted that in the charge-sheet, statements of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS were recorded which on the face of it were corroborative in nature. During the investigation, the IO seized the mobile phone of the petitioner, but the video clips/screen records could not be seized and he sought for time to produce the related videos before the trial court.

Thus, the court said, it can be presumed that investigation has not been completed since the IO is to produce the videos before the trial court though the mobile of the petitioner has been seized.

It said that if further documentary evidence comes to light during ongoing investigation, it is open for the investigating agency to produce the same before by submitting supplementary charge sheet before the trial court and IO is always at liberty to file supplementary chargesheet before the trial court, if any documentary evidence is revealed.

On defamation the court said that the law seeks to protect the invaluable asset of reputation by providing necessary safeguards for genuine expression and fair comments through any means. It said that while Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it does not protect the publication of defamatory, abusive, or malicious content on social media. 

"Posting false assertions, running malicious campaigns, or sharing unverified allegations online can trigger civil suits for damages or criminal prosecution. In order to constitute defamation it must be satisfied that the statements made or published was understood by others and in a defamatory sense and the impact of the defamatory statement can only be assessed by examination of the person who heard or read the alleged defamatory statement or post. In the instant case, it is at the stage of appearance and supply of accused copy. Thus, the cases instituted against the petitioner are at the nascent stage," the court added.

The court further held that police have a statutory right to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of the CrPC (now Section 193(3) of the BNSS) without any requirement for a prior order quashing the original FIR or charge sheet. In this case, the court said, the petitioner can simultaneously face a supplementary charge sheet and pursue a petition for quashing the entire matrix i.e. the FIRs and the original and supplementary charge sheets, if the ingredients of the alleged offense are absent.

The court said that when a mobile phone is seized in a defamation case and no videos are found, the police or court may order further investigation to recover deleted data, check cloud backups, or find other proof. 

Biswas had moved high court seeking quashing of  FIRs lodged in 2025 under Sections 356(2), 356, 356(3) (criminal defamation) of the BNS and Section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) IT Act. 

It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner, a content creator, had used "abusive, derogatory and criticizing language to malign" the Prime Minister of India. It was further alleged that the petitioner has used unwanted words regarding the Mayor of Agartala as well as Mata Tripureshwari.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with the alleged incident, and subsequently she was released on interim bail by the high court on January 7. Charge sheet was filed in both the cases. Biswas was enlarged on permanent bail on February 13. 

Thereafter, complaints were again lodged by the complainants alleging  that the petitioner after being enlarged on bail, has been threatening the complainant to withdraw the complaint.

Meanwhile the petitioner argued that on 15.04.2026 she lodged a written complaint with the police claiming that her house had been ransacked and she and her son were brutally assaulted. 

The court dismissed the petitions, directing the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation and file supplementary charge sheet before trial court. The court clarified that the petitioner shall be free to agitate her case before the trial court. 

Case title: Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty @ Madhavi Biswas Chakraborty @ Moon Moon Biswas v/s The State of Tripura and another

W.P.(Crl)8/2026, W.P.(Crl)9/2026

Appearance: Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate Mr. T. Dhar, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. Raju Datta, PP For Respondent(s)

Click Here To Read/Download Order