Tripura High Court Refuses Quashing of Defamation Case Against Content Creator Madhabi Biswas

A division bench of the High Court of Tripura has declined to quash two FIRs and charge-sheets against content creator Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty, accused of posting defamatory content targeting the Prime Minister, the Mayor of Agartala, and the deity Mata Tripureshwari — while directing the investigating officer to conduct further investigation to recover missing video evidence.

The bench, comprising Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, dismissed the writ petitions filed under Section 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Article 21, on 12 August 2026.

The Allegations: A Content Creator Under the Scanner

The petitioner, a social media content creator, found herself facing two criminal cases — East Agartala PS Case No. 2025EAG108 and West Agartala PS Case No. 2025WAG113 — registered under Sections 356, 356(2), and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIRs alleged that Biswas used "abusive, derogatory and criticizing language" to malign the Prime Minister of India, made unwanted remarks against the Mayor of Agartala, and hurt the religious sentiments of devotees of Mata Tripureshwari. Following her arrest, she was granted interim bail by the High Court on 7 January 2026 , with permanent bail following on 13 February 2026 after charge-sheets were filed in December 2025 .

Matters escalated when complainants lodged fresh complaints alleging that Biswas, after securing bail, had threatened them to withdraw their cases. Conversely, the petitioner claimed her own house was ransacked and she and her son were brutally assaulted on 15 April 2026 — a complaint she alleged was never registered.

Defending Free Speech: The Petitioner's Case

Senior Advocate Mr. P. Roy Barman, representing Biswas, argued that the FIR's contents do not disclose any cognizable offence. He contended that his client merely expressed her opinion without making any defamatory statements against the Prime Minister, Mayor, or Mata Tripureshwari, and that the case stemmed from "political vengeance" given the petitioner's political affiliations.

Mr. Roy Barman further submitted that witness statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS were "omnibus" in nature, that the investigation was "perfunctory and politically motivated," and that the petitioner's expressions were protected under Exceptions (2), (3), and (6) of Section 356 BNS as statements made in good faith. He invoked Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, asserting the fundamental right to express thoughts and opinions, citing precedents including Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), and the landmark State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992).

The State's Counter: Reputation and Sentiment at Stake

Public Prosecutor Mr. Raju Datta countered that the petitioner's words were intended to defame the Prime Minister globally, and that Article 19's restrictions on free expression apply squarely to such conduct. He argued that the petitioner "deliberately attacked the sentiment of the people of Tripura" through derogatory statements about Mata Tripureshwari, and that with a prima facie case established, charge-sheets were rightly filed.

The State relied on Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar (2025) and Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand (2024) to argue that at the quashing stage, courts must only assess whether a prima facie offence exists — not conduct a mini-trial.

"Misuse of Liberties in the Garb of Freedom of Speech"

The Court observed that social media, while integral to modern life, can rapidly spread false information and cause irreparable reputational damage. Examining the FIR's contents, the bench found that the petitioner's words "drew criticism against the PM and Mayor by mocking at their name and surname" and hurt the sentiments of Mata Tripureshwari's devotees.

"Such unprivileged statement made by the petitioners caused harm to the personal and professional reputation of the Prime Minister and the Mayor of the State and the same can constitute defamation . The complainants, therefore, retain their right to sue for defamation ," the Court held.

Crucially, the bench noted that while the investigating officer had seized the petitioner's mobile phone, the allegedly defamatory video clips and screen recordings remained untraceable, with time sought to produce them before the trial court. This incomplete investigation, the Court said, warranted further probe.

"In the instant case, the petitioner's comments prima facie seem to be a misuse of the liberties in the garb of freedom of speech through her mobile," the judgment observed.

The Legal Framework: Balancing Free Speech and Reputation

Citing Somjeet Mallick , the Court reiterated that allegations in an FIR or police report must be taken at face value when determining whether a prima facie case exists, and that the correctness of allegations cannot be tested at the quashing stage. From Abhishek Singh , it drew the principle that the High Court's task is to see whether an offence is prima facie made out, not to examine whether charges will ultimately hold.

The bench also clarified the distinction between "further investigation" and "re-investigation," drawing on State through CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy (2023), which affirmed that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (now Section 193(9) BNSS) is a continuation — not a fresh start — available even after cognizance has been taken.

" Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it does not protect the publication of defamatory, abusive, or malicious content on social media. It is trite law that free expression is not a license to ruin reputation," the Court stated, adding that posting false assertions or running malicious campaigns can trigger both civil and criminal consequences.

Court's Direction: Further Investigation and Supplementary Charge-Sheet

Dismissing the petitions, the Court held that the cases were still at a "nascent stage" — the stage of appearance and supply of accused copies — and that the investigating officer retains the statutory right to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 193(9) BNSS.

"The hands of the investigating agency or the Court should not be tied down on the ground that further investigation may delay the trial, as the ultimate object is to arrive at the truth," the bench observed. The IO was directed to recover the missing videos — whether from deleted data, cloud backups, or other sources — and file the supplementary charge-sheet before the trial court , which shall then proceed in accordance with law.

Notably, the Court clarified that Biswas remains free to agitate her defences before the trial court, including her counter-allegations of assault and house ransacking. The petitioner may simultaneously face supplementary proceedings while pursuing quashing remedies if the ingredients of the alleged offences are ultimately found absent.

The judgment underscores that while political criticism is an essential component of democracy, the constitutional office of the Prime Minister warrants protection against abusive and defamatory language on social media platforms — a position that is likely to resonate in future defamation cases across Indian courts.