IMPORTANT POINT
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 cases of deliberate incitement, identity-based hatred or clear threat to public order.

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 the Governments in Sri Lanka and Nepal would happen here too and due to that tweet, there was tension created by anti-social elements in their locality, owing to which, he and his friends in the area were tensed and lost their peace. By the tweet, the accused had intended to incite youngsters against the police, the elected Government and the sovereignty of the State. There was a possibility of creating enmity between the Government and the public, resulting in disturbance to law and order and public peace. While the people were agitated on account of the Karur incident, it was not proper for the accused to call people to indulge in crime against the State. This was against the sovereignty of the State and leading the youngsters in a wrong way to rebel against the sovereignty of India.

3.3 By posting this false information, he has created enmity and dissatisfaction in the minds of the youngsters to rebel against the Government and hence, action has to be taken against the accused who had posted the tweet. Based on the above complaint, the impugned FIR was registered as stated at paragraph no.2, supra and seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, the instant criminal original petition has been filed.

4. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, taking this Court through the tweet made by the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, who is the General Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam [for short “TVK”], a political outfit in the State of Tamil Nadu, having seen a video of police excess at Karur during the roadshow of his party leader held on 27.09.2025 (Saturday) leading to death of 41 persons, got irked by the same and posted a tweet at 11.28 p.m. on 29.09.2025; though the tweet was made by the petitioner, in 15 minutes, the same was edited and in a span of 34 minutes from the time of its original posting, i.e., at 00.02 hrs. on 30.09.2025, it was deleted, which only goes to show that there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner; further, when the tweet was predicated on a video on police brutality and when, concededly, the video was not fabricated and not refuted to be false either, there was no need whatsoever for registration of the impugned FIR. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the mere factum of deletion of the tweet in 34 minutes of its post, makes it loud and clear that inciting violence was not the intent of the petitioner and as such, no mens rea can be attributed to him.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a plain and cursory reading of the tweet in question would make it amply clear that any religious or communal group was not the target audience and on the contrary, it focussed only on the police excesses, that too, in a non- personal manner sans unparliamentary usages and