The Tripura High Court has declined to dismiss criminal proceedings against a content creator accused of making allegedly abusive and derogatory comments about Prime Minister Narendra Modi on social media. The court observed that political criticism is an important part of democratic discourse, but said the use of allegedly defamatory or insulting language can attract legal consequences.
A division bench comprising Justices T Amarnath Goud and S Datta Purkayastha was hearing petitions filed by Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty, who sought the cancellation of FIRs and chargesheets registered against her by Tripura Police.
Stay Connected · Headline8
Get breaking news instantly — follow our official channels
The cases relate to alleged social media posts containing objectionable remarks about the Prime Minister. Complaints also accused the content creator of making inappropriate comments concerning the Mayor of Agartala and Mata Tripureshwari.
In its observations, the court noted the growing use of social media platforms by people to express opinions on political, social and other matters. However, it stressed that freedom of expression does not necessarily protect content that allegedly crosses legal boundaries.
The bench said the Prime Minister occupies a significant constitutional position and that criticism of political leaders is permissible in a democracy. At the same time, the court observed that allegedly abusive, defamatory or derogatory content published online may lead to criminal proceedings under applicable laws.
According to the court, the FIRs indicated that the petitioner had allegedly used derogatory expressions concerning the Prime Minister and the state’s mayor, with investigators alleging an intention to damage their reputation.
The proceedings involved separate cases registered at the East Agartala and West Agartala police stations. Police subsequently filed chargesheets after investigating the allegations.
The content creator had earlier been arrested in connection with the cases. The High Court granted her interim bail on January 7, followed by permanent bail on February 13 after the chargesheets were submitted.
The latest ruling does not determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused but allows the criminal proceedings to continue. The case highlights the continuing legal debate surrounding political expression on social media and the boundaries between criticism, offensive speech and potentially unlawful content.
The court’s observations also underline the importance of exercising caution while posting comments concerning public figures, particularly when such statements are alleged to contain defamatory or insulting language.
