'Brazenly Abused Freedom Of Speech' : Supreme Court Refuses Plea To Quash FIR Over Post Against Prime Minister

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by BJP worker Gurudath Shetty, a resident of Bengaluru, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Gujarat Police over a social media post allegedly targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing Shetty's plea challenging the FIR lodged for a post attributed to him on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), under a parody account titled “Jawaharlal Nehru Satire”. The petitioner was booked for cognisable and bailable offences under Section 336(4) and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

At the outset, counsel for Shetty submitted that the petitioner was only seeking protection for a few days to enable him to approach the jurisdictional High Court. “Need a 5–7 days' notice, so that I can protect myself, because these are bailable offences,” the counsel urged. It was further argued that Shetty had not authored the post in question and had merely reposted it with a question mark.

Responding to this submission, the CJI asked whether the petitioner wanted the Court to read out the contents of the post in open court. When the counsel stated that the post had not been annexed to the petition, the CJI remarked that the petitioner appeared to have shown no remorse for his actions. “You have not annexed it because you have no sense of repentance. You do not have any remorse for what you have done. You do not have even a kind word for those persons whom you are abusing,” the CJI observed.

Refusing to grant any relief, the Bench dismissed the petition, holding that it was not a fit case for the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. In its order, the Court said, “The petitioner has brazenly abused the pristine fundamental right of free expression and speech; we cannot extend any discretion or relief by this Court.”

While dismissing the plea, the Bench clarified that Shetty was at liberty to approach the appropriate High Court to seek remedies in accordance with law. However, when the petitioner's counsel again pressed for a seven-day protection, the CJI firmly declined, stating, “There is no question of protection.”

According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that the content of the post was intended to tarnish the reputation of the Prime Minister.

Shetty stated in his petition that the Ahmedabad police reached his residence in Bengaluru on November 10 without any warrant and was forcibly taken in a car and told that he was being taken to Gujarat. After much protest and discussion by the petitioner, he was released on midnight, and was served with a notice under Section 35 BNSS to appear before the investigating officer.

In his petition, Shetty had sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that it was illegal, arbitrary and violative of constitutional and statutory safeguards under the Constitution and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He had also sought an interim stay on the impugned notice or communication, contending that it was contrary to the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and violative of Section 35 of the BNSS.

The plea was filed through Advocate-on-Record Rashi Jindal.

Case Details : GURUDATH SHETTY K vs. STATE OF GUJARAT|W.P.(Crl.) No. 515/2025