“The instant post can be treated as false information and the spread of a rumour through electronic means. But only if there is an intent to cause, or it is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity, the same would attract the offence,” the court noted.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, asked the man, Vinoth Suriya Kumar, to file an affidavit acknowledging his mistake and seeking apology. The court noted that such an affidavit was necessary since such reckless allegations in social media posts would cause permanent damage and create unnecessary anxiety among people about the newly elected Minister.

“Let the said affidavit be filed. The same is insisted upon because (i) when a new incumbent takes charge upon a fresh election, such reckless allegations will create unnecessary anxiety in the minds of the people's representatives and would ultimately interfere with their work and hence against public interest; (ii) in the current times, when such social media posts go viral and reach everyone, the damage is permanently done,” the court noted.

Though the court held that the FIR against Kumar will not stand, the court remarked that the Minister would be at liberty to initiate both civil and criminal prosecution against him for the reckless comments.

“Therefore, leaving it open to the second respondent/de facto complainant or the Minister concerned to take such action as may be available in law for defamation, both civil and criminal, the First Information Report in Crime No.82 of 2026 cannot be sustained,” the court observed.

Kumar had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Cyber cell based on a complaint made by the Junior Personnel Assistant of the Minister. It was alleged that Kumar had made social media posts linking the Minister to alleged fraudulent registration of land with respect to Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple at Pazhani. Based on the complaint, a case was registered for offences under Sections 192 (provoking to commit rioting), 353(1)(b) (circulating false statements), and 353(2) (alarming reports via electronic media) of the BNS.

Kumar argued that a reference to the post would show that the same were political posts forming part of a political campaign regarding the efficiency of the management of the temple and were within the realm of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the allegations made in the social media post were false and spurious and had been made with an intention of tarnishing the image of the Minister. It was also argued that the post mentioned Lord Muruga, which was done with an intention of creating enmity among various religious groups. It was argued that the post attempted to create a false impression as if the Government was flittering away with temple property and was an attempt to whip up disturbance of public order.

The court noted that the matter relating to fraudulent registration of land was under inquiry. The court noted that though the post was a political comment, its content was as if the incident happened during the current regime, which was false. The court remarked that the majority of the comments were political and it was a ground for the present Government to feel that it was an uncharitable, politically motivated campaign.

However, with respect to the charges alleged, the court opined that the same was not made out. On Section 192, the court noted that the same was made out only when there was an intention to provoke persons to indulge in rioting. In the present case, the court noted that there was no such intention and no rioting had taken place.

Regarding Section 353, the court noted that it would be attracted only when the rumour or false news circulated is intended to create or promote enmity, hatred or ill-will on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community, etc. The court noted that the posts in the present case were not intended to create or promote ill-feeling. Thus, the court opined that the essential ingredients for attracting the offence was absent.

Thus, the court noted that the offences charged against Kumar would not stand. However, the court also noted that the statements made were defamatory imputations against the Minister. Thus, though the court quashed the plea, the court also gave liberty to the Minister or the defacto complainant to launch civil or criminal prosecution for the defamatory statements.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. Saravanan for C. Arunkumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Vinoth Suriya Kumar v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

Case No: Crl OP No 20304 of 2026