Supreme Court upholds guidelines on preliminary inquiry before FIR on social media posts

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Telangana High Court's judgment which laid down guidelines including preliminary inquiry, verification of locus standi of complainants before lodging FIRs in a case of social media posts against the government and political executives.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi upheld the guidelines set through the judgment on September 10, 2025, which stated that the police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech. Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may criminal law be invoked. Constitutional protections for free political criticism under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution must be scrupulously enforced.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra for the Telangana government submitted the guidelines issued by the High Court were inconsistent with each other. He urged that this court should look into the guidelines and rectify the inconsistencies.

The bench, however, said, "We are of the view that we should not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court including the guidelines issued by the High Court.''

The High Court has said, with a view to safeguarding fundamental rights as well as preventing the criminal process from being invoked mechanically or arbitrarily, it is appropriate to prescribe a set of operational guidelines for police authorities and judicial magistrates when dealing with proceedings initiated on the basis of social media posts.

It held these directions are particularly relevant in cases where the registration of FIRs is sought in connection with such posts.

Accordingly, it said, before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences, the police must verify whether the complainant qualifies as the "person aggrieved" in terms of law. Complaints by unrelated third parties lacking standing are not maintainable, except where the report concerns a cognizable offence.

The High Court also declared, where a representation or complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police shall, prior to registration of crime, conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out.

The High Court also emphasised on high threshold for media post/speech-related offences, holding no case alleging promotion of enmity, intentional insult, public mischief, threat to public order, or sedition shall be registered unless there exists prima facie material disclosing incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder. This threshold must be applied in line with the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Granting protection of political speech/post, the HC said the police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech. Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may criminal law be invoked. Constitutional protections for free political criticism under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution must be scrupulously enforced.

Highlighting the fact that defamation is a non-cognizable offence, the HC said, since defamation is classified as a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot directly register an FIR or crime in such matters. The complainant must be directed to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. Police action may follow only upon a specific order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS.

The High Court also stressed on compliance with arrest guidelines, saying in all cases, the police would strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, (2014), automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed.

The HC also underscored at prior legal scrutiny in sensitive cases, holding in matters involving political speech/post or other sensitive forms of expression, the police shall obtain prior legal opinion from the public prosecutor before registering an FIR, to ensure that the proposed action is legally sustainable.

With regard to frivolous or motivated complaints, the HC said, where a complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or politically motivated, the police shall close the matter under Section 176(1) of the BNSS, citing absence of sufficient grounds for investigation.