New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Telangana High Court order that effectively rewrites the law for registering FIRs against social media posts—a significant setback for Telangana Police.
On Monday, the top court, by dismissing the state government’s appeal, has cemented a strict eight-point protocol issued in September 2025 by the high court, which has barred the police from “mechanically” arresting citizens for digital speech and mandating a “high threshold” of violence for invoking criminal law.
Without ascribing specific reasons, the Supreme Court, after examining the high court’s reasoning, said that it found no grounds to interfere with the high court order.
“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 Supreme Court has said.
The dismissal brings a definitive end to the state government’s argument that the high court had “virtually rewritten the law” and “legislated”, rather than adjudicated.
The state, in its petition, contended that procedural steps, which, it claimed, were “not envisaged in the statute”, would ensure that the “prevention of violence comes at the cost of non-prosecution of the offender”.
But with the apex court declining to intervene, the strict new guidelines are now the law in Telangana.
In this report, ThePrint explains the new guidelines for Telangana Police—now upheld by the SC.
Minimum thresholds, prosecutor’s opinion & inquiry
Police cannot register cases merely for harsh, offensive, or critical political speech, the high court had said. “Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may criminal law be invoked,” the court’s guidelines had said.
The high court had added that constitutional protections for free political criticism under Article 19(1)(a), which provides for the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, must be “scrupulously enforced”.
This means that the rigours of criminal law, such as registration of an FIR, can only be invoked when this higher threshold of incitement of violence or imminent threat is met.
The high court, referring to sensitive cases hinged on political speech or other sensitive forms of expression, had mandated a legal opinion from the public prosecutor from the end of the police before they registered an FIR to ensure it was legally sustainable.
If a complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, the police should conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR to verify, prima facie, that the statutory ingredients are met.
Cognisable offences are those for which the police may arrest without a warrant and initiate an investigation without a magistrate’s permission.
Also Read: Manipur gangrape & parading of women was barbaric. CBI court junks bail plea of prime accused
Locus standi, cognisable offences & Arnesh Kumar
The high court guidelines had also stressed that the police must verify if the complainant is actually the “person aggrieved” to have the relevant “locus” or standing to file an FIR.
Third parties cannot file complaints for defamation unless it is a cognisable offence.
“Complaints by unrelated third parties lacking standing are not maintainable,” the HC had said.
In cases of defamation, which is a non-cognizable offence, police are barred from directly registering an FIR. They must direct the complainant to the magistrate.
More crucially, the high court had directed police to “strictly comply” with the Supreme Court’s landmark 2014 judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar that sought to curb automatic arrests, warning that “automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible”.
The Arnesh Kumar verdict was the Supreme Court’s attempt to check the police’s power to make arrests, mandating that the police must justify the necessity of an arrest for offences punishable with less than seven years in jail.
“We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognisable, and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another,” the court had noted in 2014.
Police are empowered to close “frivolous, vexatious, or politically motivated” complaints immediately under Section 176(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, citing the absence of sufficient grounds for investigation.
Section 176(1) outlines the procedure for investigating cognisable offences.
Three FIRs, criticism of Congress
The legal battle had originated from a series of tweets in March 2025 by Nalla Balu, referred to in the FIR as “a BRS party social media member”. Balu had targeted Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy and the ruling Congress government with sharp satire.
For instance, in one post, Balu had shared a photo of the chief minister with the caption, “No Vision, No Mission, Only 20% Commission! This is how the 15-month rule of the Revanth Reddy-led Congress Government is in Telangana.”
In another, he had described the Congress party as a “scourge” and a “pest”, stating, “If the field is affected by the pest, the people will be disturbed.”
The Telangana Police had registered three separate FIRs under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences including provoking riots and public mischief, calling it a “concerted effort” to incite public unrest.
Nalla Balu had then moved the Telangana High Court to quash the FIRs, arguing his posts were protected political opinion.
Then, in September of last year, the high court agreed with Balu and issued its guidelines, noting that the criticism was valid political criticism and providing a set of operational guidelines.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Why the delay—SC raps ED-CBI for slow probe into Anil Ambani Group loan fraud case