Back
Mere Forwarding of 'Fake News' on Social Media Isn't Criminal: Telangana HC Delivers Relief in Political Feud
In a ruling that underscores the boundaries of criminal liability for online sharing, the has quashed proceedings against Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy and another, accused Nos. 1 and 3 in FIR No. 86 of 2025 at . Single Judge Bench of Honourable SMT Justice K. Sujana , in her order dated , held that simply forwarding social media content does not meet the stringent requirements of —offences related to statements conducing to public mischief.
The decision, echoing an earlier common order from , emphasizes that without proven or intent to incite communal hatred or public alarm, such actions fall short of criminality, especially amid allegations of political maneuvering.
The Paper Leak Scandal Ignites a Political Firestorm
The controversy traces back to the SSC Telugu Board exam paper leakage case , where private teacher Guduguntla Shankar was arrested. A Congress party leader from the BC (Yadav) community— the second respondent and complainant—claimed YouTube channels and T-News broadcast false reports linking him to Shankar's activities. He alleged this portrayal damaged his reputation and political career, causing mental distress.
BRS party leaders and social media handlers, including the petitioners, were accused of amplifying these "fake news" items on Twitter (now X) without verification. This led to FIR No. 86 of 2025 under BNS Sections 353(1)(c) (circulating rumours likely to cause fear or alarm) and 353(2) (promoting enmity between communities). Multiple FIRs for the same incident further complicated matters, prompting the petitioners' plea under inherent powers to quash the proceedings.
Petitioners Cry Foul: 'Political Hit Job, No Criminal Intent'
Represented by , the petitioners argued they were innocent victims of political rivalry , dragged in to deflect attention from the actual paper leak scandal. Key points: - No (guilty mind) to support BNS charges; mere forwarding of existing news isn't creation or endorsement. - No rumours or alarming content circulated to disturb public tranquility or incite enmity—essential for . - Precedent of the court quashing FIR No. 86 against another accused in Crl.P. No. 8966 of 2025 ( ). - Multiple FIRs violate law, as per Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (AIR 2001 SC 2637), constituting .
State's Stand: 'Deliberate Harm Through Digital Amplification'
, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, countered that the complaint clearly showed intent to tarnish the complainant's image. Investigation uncovered witness statements and incriminating social media posts , justifying continuation. Quashing at this stage, he urged, would undermine probes into reputational harm via fake news.
Decoding the Judgment: Intent Trumps Amplification
Justice K. Sujana meticulously weighed the materials, noting the FIR stemmed from SSC leak-related posts. Crucially, she observed that even assuming the petitioners forwarded the content, the ingredients of Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) BNS were absent —no intent to incite communal enmity or public fear.
The court leaned heavily on its common order in Crl.P. Nos. 8965, 8966, and 8989, which ruled similar posts lacked elements to disturb tranquility. It reinforced T.T. Antony against multiple FIRs and its own precedent in Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. State of Telangana (AIRONLINE 2021 TEL 76), deeming further proceedings an .
This aligns with broader judicial caution on social media cases: sharing isn't synonymous with origination or malice, protecting free expression unless clear criminal thresholds are crossed.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
"Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners had circulated or forwarded such content, the essential ingredients of Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of BNS, are not attracted."
-
"The alleged posts, even if assumed to be made by the petitioners, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of
. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an
of law."
-
"Registration of multiple FIRs on the basis of one and the same incident amounts to
of law."
(Relying on T.T. Antony )
Gavel Falls: FIR Quashed, Precedent Set for Digital Shares
Criminal Petition No. 12721 of 2025
stands allowed:
"Hence, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in FIR.No.86 of 2025 before the
, are hereby quashed."
The ruling offers practical relief to the petitioners, closing pending applications. More broadly, it signals to courts and police: scrutinize intent in social media FIRs, curb multiplicity, and avoid criminalizing routine forwarding—vital in India's polarized digital-political landscape. Future cases involving online "fake news" may cite this to demand proof beyond shares, balancing reputation protection with expression rights.
