Back
A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Aadhav Arjuna – Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed assailing the First Information Report in Cr.No.47 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police [for short “the impugned FIR”].
2. The second respondent/de facto complainant who is an LIC agent by avocation, lodged a complaint with the first respondent police on 30.09.2025 at 6 p.m. which was registered as Cr.No.47 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 192, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for short “the BNS”].
3. The sum and substance of the aforesaid complaint which led to the registration of the impugned FIR is as follows:
3.1 On 29.09.2025, while the second respondent/de facto complainant was watching social media, he saw a post of one Aadhav Arjuna in his X platform in which he had uploaded a 30 second video where the police were seen beating the public and along with that, he had posted a content in Tamil which reads as follows:
3.2 The above social media post had been seen by more than 37,000 persons and thousands had shared it and he and his friends who had seen that, were shocked by the same and they feared that similar rioting and violence that took place against t
Posting of offensive Tweet – Freedom of speech encompasses right to dissent, critique and express political discontent and criminal prosecution in matters of expression must be reserved only for case....
Right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy. Merely because the point of view of Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expre....
The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).
Political criticism on social media is protected under the fundamental right to freedom of speech, and FIRs based on third-party complaints are procedurally unsustainable if filed without a legitimat....
Point of Law : The word 'Promote' does not imply mere describing and narrating a fact, or giving opinion, criticising the point of view or actions of another person.
The court held that the intent behind tweets must be assessed carefully, and freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and national integrity.
FIR quashed - Through Facebook ID, posted objectionable material - Religious sentiments - Petitioner has shared post of other person, even, contents of FIR does not, prima facie, establish alleged of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
