The Telangana High Court has clarified that merely forwarding unverified social media content, even if false, does not constitute an offence under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) absent proof of intent to incite hatred or disturb public tranquility. This ruling reinforces the threshold for criminal liability in digital communications and curbs multiplicity of proceedings arising from the same incident.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy and another, are accused in FIR No.86 of 2025 registered at Nakrekal Police Station under Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complaint was filed by a Congress party leader belonging to the BC (Yadav) community, who alleged that certain YouTube channels and T-News broadcasted false news linking her to Guduguntla Shankar, a private teacher arrested in connection with the SSC Telugu Board exam paper leakage case. The complainant further alleged that BRS party leaders and their social media in-charges, including the petitioners, forwarded this content on Twitter without verification, thereby damaging her reputation, political career, and causing mental distress.
Key Facts
- The alleged false news implicated the complainant in the SSC exam paper leakage scandal, which was a matter of significant public interest in early 2025.
- The complainant lodged her complaint on or about 15.02.2025, leading to registration of FIR No.86 of 2025 on 20.02.2025.
- The petitioners are not alleged to have created the original content but are accused of sharing or forwarding it on Twitter.
- Multiple FIRs were registered across different police stations in Telangana concerning the same social media posts related to the SSC paper leakage case.
- The petitioners were not named in the initial complaint but were added during investigation based on digital footprint analysis.
Procedural History
- 15.02.2025: Complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent.
- 20.02.2025: FIR No.86 of 2025 registered at Nakrekal Police Station.
- 09.09.2025: Telangana High Court quashed FIR No.86 of 2025 against another accused in Crl.P. No.8966 of 2025, holding that forwarding social media posts did not attract Section 353 BNS.
- 18.03.2026: Present Criminal Petition No.12721 of 2025 filed seeking quashing of proceedings against petitioners.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners assert they are innocent and were falsely implicated due to political rivalry. They argue that they did not originate the false news, merely shared it, and lacked any mens rea to incite enmity between communities. They emphasize that the content did not target any specific community or provoke violence or alarm.
For the Respondent/State
The State contends that the petitioners, as BRS party social media in-charges, acted with intent to defame the complainant and damage her political standing. The prosecution claims that investigation has yielded incriminating material, including screenshots of shared posts and witness statements, justifying continuation of proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.86 of 2025 and all proceedings arising therefrom, on grounds of non-disclosure of offence under Section 353 BNS and abuse of process due to multiplicity of FIRs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether forwarding unverified social media content linking a public figure to a scandal, without intent to incite enmity between communities or create public alarm, constitutes an offence under Section 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 353 BNS requires proof of specific intent to provoke enmity or hatred between communities, or to cause fear or alarm to the public. Mere forwarding of content, without creation or malicious intent, cannot satisfy this threshold. He relied on the Court’s own order dated 09.09.2025 in Crl.P. No.8966 of 2025, which held that similar posts did not attract Section 353 BNS. He further argued that multiple FIRs for the same incident violate the principle against abuse of process, as affirmed in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. State of Telangana.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners, as political party functionaries, had a duty to verify content before dissemination. He argued that the act of forwarding defamatory material with knowledge of its falsity, and in a context of heightened political tension, demonstrates criminal intent. He emphasized that investigation is ongoing and material has been collected, making quashing premature.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 353 BNS, which criminalizes acts done with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public, or to incite enmity between communities. The Court noted that the provision requires a direct nexus between the act and the intended consequence - either public disorder or communal hatred.
"The alleged posts, even if assumed to be made by the petitioners, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 353 BNS."
The Court reiterated its earlier holding in Crl.P. Nos.8965, 8966 and 8989 of 2025, where it had concluded that social media posts referencing the SSC paper leakage case, even if false, did not contain language inciting hatred between communities or creating public alarm. The Court observed that the complainant’s grievance pertains to reputational harm, which is a civil wrong, not a criminal offence under Section 353 BNS.
The Court further held that registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident, based on identical social media posts, constitutes an abuse of the process of law. It relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala to affirm that multiplicity of proceedings is impermissible unless there is a distinct cause of action or new evidence.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that ongoing investigation justifies continuation of proceedings, noting that the absence of prima facie offence at the threshold cannot be cured by subsequent investigation. The Court emphasized that the law must not be used as a tool for political harassment.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court quashed all proceedings initiated against them in FIR No.86 of 2025 before the Nakrekal Police Station. All pending miscellaneous applications in this petition are closed. The Court held that the allegations, even if true, do not constitute an offence under Section 353 BNS, and the continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Forwarding Content Is Not Criminal by Default
- Practitioners must distinguish between civil defamation and criminal incitement under Section 353 BNS.
- Mere sharing of unverified content, without evidence of intent to provoke communal hatred or public alarm, cannot ground a criminal complaint.
- Defence counsel should move for quashing at the earliest stage where the complaint lacks essential ingredients of the offence.
Multiplicity of FIRs Is an Abuse of Process
- Multiple FIRs arising from identical social media posts are impermissible under T.T. Antony and Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy.
- Courts must scrutinize whether each FIR alleges a distinct act or new victim; otherwise, they must be quashed.
- This precedent applies equally to cases under Section 353 BNS, Section 505 IPC, and similar provisions.
Social Media Accountability Requires Proportionality
- Law enforcement must avoid over-criminalization of digital expression.
- Investigating agencies must assess intent and context before registering FIRs under penal provisions.
- Political targeting through criminal complaints must be resisted with judicial intervention at the threshold.
