Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Aadhav Arjuna – Appellant
Versus
The State represented by the Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Police Station Chennai North – Respondent
Crl.O.P. No.28737 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Counsel, Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, Sr. Counsel, Mr. K.P. Anantha Krishna, M/s.Pranav Gopalakrishnan, Mayan H. Jain, Yash S. Vijay, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Rupali Samuel
For R1: Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, Mr. E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor
Freedom of speech is protected unless there is clear evidence of incitement to violence; mere political dissent or criticism does not constitute criminal liability.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 and Sections 192, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(b), 353(2) - Criminal petition to quash FIR alleging incitement to violence through social media posts - The petitioner deleted the tweet shortly after posting it, indicating lack of mens rea - No evidence of incitement or public disorder - Quashing of FIR upheld based on freedom of speech protections. (Paras 4, 9, 27, 34)
(B) Freedom of Speech - Political dissent, criticism or advocacy is protected under Article 19(1)(a), unless it meets the threshold of clear incitement or hate speech - Intent must be evidently linked to incitement for criminal liability. (Paras 25-30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner posted a tweet depicting police violence during a political event following a deadly stampede, prompting a complaint that alleged the post incited public unrest. The tweet was deleted within 34 minutes, reflecting potential lack of intent to provoke violence. (Paras 2-3, 20-22)
Findings of Court:
The tweet did not target any identifiable group for incitement, and the lack of resultant violence suggested that it did not pose a threat to public order. Quashing of the FIR was appropriate as it had not met legal thresholds. (Paras 30-34)
Issues: The core issues included whether the tweet constituted incitement under the relevant legal provisions and if the FIR was valid without a preliminary inquiry. (Paras 7, 11, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that freedom of speech encompasses the right to dissent and only speech that incited violence could attract criminal liability. The absence of mens rea and failure to demonstrate actual incitement justified quashing the FIR. (Paras 28-30)
Result: The impugned FIR stands quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the factual background leading to the fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's argument regarding intent and lack of mens rea. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. use of supreme court judgments to argue for quashing of fir. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. respondent's counterarguments against petitioner's claim. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's procedural overview and decision making process. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. contextual relevance of the tweet and its content. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. interpretation of legal standards on freedom of speech. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. final observation regarding the nature of the tweet. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 9. importance of differential impact based on the petitioner's status. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. quashing of the fir as a legal consequence. (Para 34) |
| 11. final conclusion of the court's ruling. (Para 35) |
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 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 g
