Agartala, 13th August 2026 : The Tripura High Court has refused to quash two FIRs and corresponding charge-sheets filed against a content creator over alleged derogatory and defamatory social media remarks concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Agartala Municipal Corporation Mayor Dipak Majumder and Mata Tripureswari.
A Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha was hearing two writ petitions challenging FIRs registered at East Agartala Police Station (Case No. 2025EAG108) and West Agartala Police Station (Case No. 2025WAG113). The cases were registered under Sections 356, 356(2) and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The petitioner had also challenged charge-sheets filed on December 29 and 31, 2025.As per the prosecution, the petitioner allegedly posted content containing abusive and derogatory language directed at the Prime Minister and made remarks concerning the Agartala Mayor and Mata Tripureswari.
The petitioner was arrested during the investigation and was granted interim bail by the High Court on January 7, 2026. Subsequently, the trial court declined custodial interrogation on January 27 and granted her permanent bail on February 13.
Senior advocate P. Roy Barman, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements for an offence of defamation. He maintained that the petitioner had only expressed her opinions and views, which were protected by the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner further alleged that the cases were politically motivated. She also claimed that her house was later vandalised and that she and her son were assaulted, while her complaint regarding the incident was allegedly not registered.
Opposing the petitions, the prosecution argued that the petitioner had deliberately used derogatory language against the Prime Minister and made remarks concerning Mata Tripureswari that could hurt the religious sentiments of devotees. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation had revealed prima facie offences and that the allegations should be tested during trial.
The High Court observed that social media had become an important part of contemporary life, providing individuals with a powerful platform for communication and expression. At the same time, the Bench noted that defamatory or false content can spread rapidly through such platforms and potentially cause serious harm to a person’s reputation.
On a prima facie assessment, the Court found that the statements attributed to the petitioner contained criticism and remarks directed at the Prime Minister and the Mayor and that some of the comments concerning Mata Tripureswari could have offended the sentiments of devotees.
The Bench observed that Section 356 of the BNS seeks to protect an individual’s reputation while maintaining a balance with the constitutional right to freedom of speech. The Court held that the right to freedom of expression cannot be treated as an unrestricted licence to publish defamatory, abusive or malicious material on social media.
The Court also took note of the fact that the investigation was still incomplete. Although the investigating officer had seized the petitioner’s mobile phone, the relevant video clips or screen recordings had not yet been recovered.
The High Court therefore directed that further investigation be carried out and allowed the investigating officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 193(9) of the BNSS if additional documentary evidence was recovered.
Considering that the proceedings were still at an early stage and that the allegations required examination through a full-fledged trial, the Bench declined to interfere with the FIRs and charge-sheets.
Accordingly, the two writ petitions were dismissed to the extent of the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings. The petitioner was, however, granted liberty to raise all her legal and factual contentions before the trial court, which was directed to proceed in accordance with law after receiving any supplementary charge-sheet.
