The Tripura High Court has refused to quash FIRs and charge sheets against a content creator accused of making allegedly derogatory remarks against the Prime Minister, the Mayor of Agartala and Mata Tripureswari on social media.

The Court observed that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is subject to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, including defamation, and does not extend to defamatory, abusive or malicious content published online. 

Justice Dr.T. Amarnath Goud & Justice S. Datta Purkayastha remarked that: “Defamation is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech as under Article 19(2) of the Constitution it balance the right to freedom of speech with right to reputation. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it does not protect the publication of defamatory, abusive, or malicious content on social media.”

Background

The petitioner, a content creator, approached the Tripura High Court seeking quashing of two FIRs and the consequential charge sheets registered under Sections 356, 356(2) and 356(3) of the BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act. The FIRs alleged that she had used abusive and derogatory language against the Prime Minister, the Mayor of Agartala and Mata Tripureswari on social media. She contended that her statements were merely expressions of opinion and did not constitute defamation. 

The petitioner was arrested in connection with the allegations and subsequently granted bail. After the charge sheets were filed, she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. 

The Court held that the allegations in the FIRs prima facie disclosed the ingredients of criminal defamation and that the matter could not be adjudicated at the quashing stage. It reiterated that a High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the correctness of the allegations while considering a petition for quashing. 

The Court further noted that the relevant video clips had not yet been recovered and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary charge sheet under Section 193(9) BNSS. Accordingly, it declined to quash the FIRs and charge sheets, leaving the petitioner free to raise her contentions before the trial court. 

Date of Decision: 12.08.2026