The Tripura High Court has refused to quash FIRs and charge-sheets filed against a content creator accused of making derogatory and defamatory remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Agartala Municipal Corporation Mayor Dipak Majumder and Mata Tripureswari.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dr T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha was hearing two petitions challenging cases registered at East Agartala Police Station and West Agartala Police Station. The cases were registered under Sections 356, 356(2) and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The petitioner had also challenged charge-sheets filed by the police on December 29 and 31, 2025.
According to the prosecution, the content creator allegedly used abusive and derogatory language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and made remarks concerning the Agartala mayor and Mata Tripureswari. She was arrested in connection with the cases and was granted interim bail by the High Court on January 7, 2026. A trial court subsequently rejected a request for custodial interrogation on January 27 and granted her regular bail on February 13.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate P. Roy Barman argued that the allegations did not meet the legal requirements for an offence of defamation. He submitted that the petitioner had merely expressed her views and that her statements were protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The petitioner also alleged that the cases were politically motivated. She claimed that her house was later ransacked and that she and her son were assaulted, while the police allegedly failed to register her complaint regarding the incident.
The prosecution opposed the petitions, arguing that the remarks were deliberately derogatory. It submitted that the comments concerning Mata Tripureswari had hurt the religious sentiments of devotees. The Public Prosecutor maintained that the investigation had established a prima facie case and that the allegations should be examined during the trial.
The High Court observed that social media has become an important part of everyday life, enabling people to communicate and express their views while also allowing false or defamatory material to spread rapidly and damage reputations.
At the prima facie stage, the Bench observed that the statements attributed to the petitioner appeared to contain criticism and remarks directed at the Prime Minister and the mayor. The court also noted that some of the remarks concerning Mata Tripureswari could have hurt the sentiments of worshippers.
The court further observed that Section 356 of the BNS seeks to protect an individual’s reputation while balancing that protection with the right to freedom of expression. It noted that the right to free speech does not extend to defamatory, abusive or malicious content circulated through social media.
The Bench also pointed out that the investigation was still incomplete. Although the investigating officer had seized the petitioner’s mobile phone, the relevant video clips or screen recordings had not yet been recovered.
The High Court therefore directed the investigating agency to continue the investigation. It also permitted the investigating officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) if further documentary evidence was recovered.
Holding that the cases were still at an early stage and that the allegations required examination during the trial, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the FIRs and charge-sheets.
The petitions were accordingly dismissed to that extent. However, the petitioner was given liberty to raise all her legal arguments before the trial court. The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law after the supplementary charge-sheet, if any, is filed.
