Back
Questions of Kishwar's Quashing Plea Over PM Video Tweet
The has sought the response of the , to a plea by Madhu Purnima Kishwar seeking quashing of an FIR registered over a social media post involving a video of a facial massage allegedly linked to the Prime Minister. Justice Vikram Aggarwal also flagged a critical preliminary issue — whether the could be entertained at all after the dismissal of the petitioner's application.
A Twitter Storm Turns Criminal
The controversy dates back to , when FIR No. 44 was registered at , pursuant to a complaint by Advocate . The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the — — alongside .
The dispute originated from a video clip showing a woman administering a facial massage to a man, which began circulating on X (formerly Twitter). The petitioner's alleged involvement centered on a tweet responding to a post from the handle @MehakArora1541 — a response that, according to Senior Counsel , named no one and made no reference to any constitutional authority.
The situation escalated when another X user, Zubair Mohammed, suggested that the petitioner's tweet implied the man in the video was the Prime Minister. The petitioner promptly responded, clarifying that
"the person in the video is not likely to be the Prime Minister."
Despite this swift clarification, the FIR was registered, and the petitioner's
application was subsequently dismissed on
.
Two Fronts: The Hurdle and the Merits
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsels and advanced a twofold submission. First, they contended that even if all allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, no offence is made out. The petitioner neither initiated the tweet nor named anyone, and made no reference to any constitutional authority. Second, they argued that at best, the case could amount to — which is not a and would not justify the invocation of the penal provisions alleged.
On behalf of the UT Chandigarh, Public Prosecutor countered by pointing to the earlier dismissal of the plea, asserting that the ought to be dismissed, particularly since the investigation remains at a nascent stage.
The Precedent That Looms Large
Justice Aggarwal did not delve into the merits of the at this stage. Instead, he drew the parties' attention to a Coordinate Bench decision in Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (CRM-M-12541-2026, decided ). That judgment is understood to establish the principle that once an petition has been dismissed, a subsequent petition seeking quashing of the same FIR would not ordinarily be maintainable — unless there has been a .
By directing the parties to address this question, the Court has effectively structured a two-stage inquiry: first, whether the petition survives the threshold bar posed by the Kuldeep Singh precedent; and second, if it does, whether the allegations in the FIR make out any offence at all.
What the Court Said
The pivotal observation in the order reads:
"Parties would also be required to inform the Court as to how, in view of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (CRM-M-12541-2026 decided on 06.05.2026), the present petition for quashing of the FIR would be maintainable/entertainable once the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed."
Next Stop: August 25
The High Court has listed the matter for , directing the UT Chandigarh to file an affidavit responding to the assertions made in the petition. The parties have also been directed to be prepared to address the issue arising from the Kuldeep Singh precedent.
The outcome of the next hearing is likely to determine not only the fate of Kishwar's , but also the practical scope of the Kuldeep Singh principle — and whether petitioners who have been denied retain a viable path to challenge the FIRs registered against them.
