'No Mechanical FIRs For Harsh Political Posts' : Supreme Court Upholds Telangana HC Guidelines For Cases Over Social Media Posts

The Supreme Court recently upheld the guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court regulating registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts and directing the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches".

The High Court had held that in case of social media posts FIR for promotion of enmity, threat to public order, or sedition can be registered only if there exists a prima facie case.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of pleas by the State of Telangana challenging the judgment of the High Court which had quashed three FIRs and laid down detailed guidelines for police and Magistrates while dealing with criminal cases arising out of social media posts.

The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment, including the operational guidelines framed by it, after examining them “threadbare”.

“We have looked into para 29 threadbare. We are of the view that we should not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court including the guidelines issued by the High Court”, the Court held.

By the impugned order, the Telangana High Court had quashed three FIRs registered against one Nalla Balu over his posts on X criticising the Congress party under Sections 192, 353(1)(b), 352, and 356 read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The High Court had found that the posts, though critical, fell within the ambit of legitimate political expression and that the complaints lacked specific particulars and locus standi. It had held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and, on that basis, framed the guidelines to prevent mechanical invocation of criminal law in cases arising out of social media posts.

The High Court's operational guidelines were for police authorities and Judicial Magistrates while dealing with proceedings initiated on the basis of social media posts, particularly at the stage of registration of FIRs.

These included directions that the police must verify locus standi before registering FIRs for defamation or similar offences and conduct a preliminary inquiry in cognizable cases to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients are made out.

Further, the High Court directed that the police must apply a high threshold in cases relating to promotion of enmity, intentional insult, public mischief, threat to public order, or sedition and no case shall be registered unless there exists prima facie material disclosing incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder.

The High Court had also directed that cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech should not be registered mechanically unless the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order, and mandated strict compliance with arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

It further required prior legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor in sensitive cases and closure of frivolous or politically motivated complaints under Section 176(1) of the BNSS.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra for the State did not argue on the merits of the quashing of the FIRs. He, however, raised objections to the broad guidelines laid down by the High Court in the impugned judgment, contending that the guidelines were inconsistent with each other and required correction by the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's judgment or the guidelines issued by it. With this observation, the special leave petitions filed by the State of Telangana were dismissed.

The guidelines issued by the High Court were :

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

 v. 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.

vi. Compliance with arrest guidelines: In all cases, the police shall strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed.

vii. 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.

viii. 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.”

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 71178/2025

Case Title – State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 113