AGARTALA | The Tripura High Court has refused to quash FIRs and charge-sheets against a content creator accused of making allegedly defamatory and derogatory 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 and West Agartala police stations. 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 the charge-sheets filed by police on December 29 and 31, 2025.

According to the prosecution, the content creator allegedly used abusive and derogatory language against the Prime Minister 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.

Defence cites freedom of speech

Senior advocate P Roy Barman, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements for an offence of defamation.

The defence maintained that the petitioner had merely expressed her views and that her statements were protected under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The petitioner also alleged that the cases were politically motivated. She claimed that her residence was subsequently ransacked and that she and her son were assaulted, alleging that police did not register her complaint concerning the incident.

The prosecution opposed the petitions, contending that the remarks were deliberately derogatory. It also submitted that comments concerning Mata Tripureswari had hurt the religious sentiments of devotees.

The Public Prosecutor argued that the investigation had established a prima facie case and that the allegations should be examined through the trial process rather than being rejected at the preliminary stage.

Court stresses need for trial examination

The High Court observed that social media has become an important platform for communication and expression, while also providing a means for false or defamatory material to spread rapidly and potentially damage an individual’s reputation.

At the prima facie stage, the Bench said, the statements attributed to the petitioner appeared to include criticism and remarks directed at the Prime Minister and the mayor. It further observed that certain comments concerning Mata Tripureswari could have hurt the sentiments of worshippers.

The court noted that Section 356 of the BNS seeks to protect reputation while balancing that protection against the right to freedom of expression. The Bench observed that the right to free speech does not provide protection for defamatory, abusive or malicious content circulated through social media.

The court also noted that the investigation had not been fully completed. Although the investigating officer had seized the petitioner’s mobile phone, relevant video clips or screen recordings had not yet been recovered.

Police allowed to file supplementary charge-sheet

The High Court directed the investigating officer to continue the investigation and permitted the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) if further documentary evidence is recovered.

The Bench held that the proceedings were still at an early stage and that the allegations, along with any additional digital evidence, required examination during trial. It therefore declined to interfere with the FIRs and charge-sheets and dismissed the petitions to that extent.

The petitioner, however, was given liberty to raise her legal and factual arguments before the trial court. The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, including after any supplementary charge-sheet is filed.