482 Quash petition IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Criminal Original Jurisdiction) Crl. O.P. NO. OF 2025 Against Crime No. 47 of 2025 (Pending investigation on the file of Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime PS, Chennai North) Aadhav Arjuna (M/43 years), S/o M Kalyani 19, Maharani Chinnamal Road, Venus Colony, Alwarpet,
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)
Crl. O.P. NO. OF 2025
Against
Crime No. 47 of 2025
(Pending investigation on the file of Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime PS, Chennai North)
Aadhav Arjuna
(M/43 years), S/o M Kalyani
19, Maharani Chinnamal Road,
Venus Colony, Alwarpet,
Chennai- 600 018 …Petitioner / Accused v.
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai North
(Crime No. 47 / 2025) …1st Respondent/ Complainant
2. Shanmugam,
S/o Narayanan,
No 4/1, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar
Thiruvangadam Street, Chennai – 600082 …2nd Respondent/ De facto Complainant
PETITION UNDER SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKHSA SANHITA, 2023
The Petitioner herein is Mr Aadhav Arjuna, s/o M. Kalyani, residing at 19, Maharani Chinnamal Road, Venus Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600018.
The address for service of all processes and notices on the Petitioner is that of his counsel M/s Pranav
Gopalakrishnan, Mayan H Jain, Yash S Vijay, Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, R Ganesh Kanna, and Mohan Parthasarathy, Advocates, having their office at No 8/52, ‘Saaketha’, 1st Link Street, Raghavan Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083, TN.
The address for service of all processes and notices on the Respondents is as stated in the cause title above.
2
The Petitioner above named most humbly begs to submit as under:
1. The Petitioner is filing the instant petition seeking to quash the FIR dated 30.09.2025 bearing Crime No. 47 of 2025 registered against him under Sections 192, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at P.S. CCD-I Chennai North.
2. The present FIR and any proceeding arising therefrom is liable to be quashed since it does not disclose the commission of any cognisable offence, much less the offence of hate speech or incitement to rioting or inducement to public mischief by the Petitioner, and further is a motivated, frivolous and vexatious complaint targeting the Petitioner for the reason that he is a member of a political party speaking up for atrocities done to the common people of the country.
3. The Petitioner is a very strong patriot with deep love for the country. He has dedicated himself to bringing international acclaim and glory to his country through his achievements in the field of sports and thereafter towards the upliftment of the ordinary man through his advocacy, philanthropy.
4. The Petitioner, born in Trichy, Tamil Nadu, faced early family hardships and was raised by his uncle and grandmother after losing his mother. Through dedication and hard work, he earned a merit scholarship to Madras Christian College, Chennai. After a successful national career as a player, he transitioned into sports administration, founded Arise Capital, and began leading key reforms for Indian sports including in the avenues of training, nutrition, and international exposure. In 2022, the Petitioner was honoured with the prestigious Best Sports Administrator award at the Ananda Vikatan-Nambikai Awards 2022 and also awarded as a Sports Icon at the Galatta Crown 2022 awards. He was also bestowed with the “Best Organizer” award at the Chief Minister Awards in 2019, for exceptional abilities in event management and coordination.
5. Beyond sports, the Petitioner is the Founder of “Voice of Commons,” a platform empowering students and young professionals to engage meaningfully in political affairs. Through his initiatives, the Petitioner sought to promote democratic engagement among the common man so as to nurture and promote the vibrant culture of democracy in the country.
6. On account of his deep passion for social justice and empowerment of the ordinary people of India, in 2024 the Petitioner joined the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) as the General Secretary of Election Campaign Management. Being strongly aligned with the party’s principles rooted in the ideologies of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Periyar, he took up this role in public life so as to dedicate himself to strengthening democracy, equality, fraternity, and social justice. The Petitioner aims, through his political work, to promote an inclusive political system that captures multiple voices of the powerless and moves beyond single party hegemony. Through these efforts, he strives to champion transformative change and uphold the values of social justice and representation embodied in the Indian Constitution. On December 6, 2024, the Petitioner published the Tamil book “A Leader for All: Ambedkar” to help bring the ideals of Dr. Ambedkar to all in an accessible form.
7. It is stated that FIR No. 47/2025 appears to have been registered against the Petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by one N. Shanmugam, an LIC agent residing in Chennai in relation to a tweet posted along with a video on the handle “@AadhavArjuna” on X.com (formerly Twitter) expressing the Petitioner’s anger and anguish at the video capturing an incident of police brutality meted out to field workers of TVK party. When viewed in the context of other online activity on the handle “@AadhavArjuna” on X.com (formerly Twitter), it is clear that the post cannot be said to be provocatory or inciting rebellion against the sovereignty and integrity of India or endangering security of the state or as inciting breach of public order. The post is clearly a response to police violence and mala fide arrests and accordingly calls for democratically overthrowing the government in power and showing the might of the people against brutality by state agencies. The social media comments of a political actor calling for regime change in the present moment cannot be seen in isolation and must be understood in the proper context of the upcoming state Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu that will occur in 2026. A reference is also made in the social media post to the people’s power witnessed in Nepal and Sri Lanka, which is only to show that political leaders are ultimately appointees of the voting public and must be accountable and answerable to the people who have put them into power.
8. The archive on X.com will show that the social media post in question was posted at 11:28 PM on 29.09.2025 and thereafter first edited to remove references to Nepal and Sri Lanka and finally deleted by the Petitioner at 12:02 AM on 30.09.2025. Thus, the post was available on the internet for a very brief period in the late hours of the night and could not have ever been intended to
foment and precipitate feelings against the integrity and sovereignty of India or to incite violence by the public.
9. The Petitioner believes in bringing about change through democratic participation which is evidenced by his long engagement in promoting participation of the common man in elections through digital tools and then through direct participation in political life as a member of TVK. The Petitioner is a peace loving person and have posted repeatedly on social media about equality, fraternity and the values of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Periyar. On 27.09.2025 and after, the Petitioner was deeply anguished and deeply regretted the loss of lives of 41 people that occurred at a tragedy at a political meeting at Karur which has caused insurmountable grief for him and the party workers of TVK. He was also angered by the manner in which TVK party members were treated as they were helping injured people in the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred with videos emerging of the local police hitting and slapping party workers. The allegedly offending media post was a strong expression of the anger of the people at the brutal police violence meted out to them. The intent conveyed was for peacefully expressing dissent through casting one’s vote in the upcoming state elections. No violent action by any person occurred pursuant to the allegedly offending social media post.
10. Prior to the allegedly offending social media post, another post was made on the Petitioner’s social media handle “@AadhavArjuna” at 1:21 AM on the intervening night of 28.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 expressing my distraught mental state after the occurrence of the tragedy at Karur on
27.09.2025:
“என் வாழ் ன் கப்ெபரிய க்கத்ைதக் கடந்த இ பத் நான் மணிேநரமாக அ ப த் வ ேறன்… இந்த மரணங்கள் என்
ெநஞ்ைச இன் ம் உ க் க்ெகாண் உள்ள .
மரணத் ன் வ ைய ம், அந்த மக்களின் அ ரைல ம் கடந் ெசல்ல
வ ன் த த் வ ேறன்.
ஒ மரணத் ன் வ ைய ஐந் வய வனாக என தா ன்
தற்ெகாைல ல் பாரத் ்தேபாேத உணரந் ்தவன் . அந்த வ ைய இப்ேபா
எனக் ண் ம் ஏற்ப த் ள்ள இந்த மரணங்கள். இந்த நி டம் வைர இந்த யர நிகழ்ைவக் கடந் ெசல்ல யாம ம், உற கைள இழந் த க் ன்ற அந்த ம்பங்களின் த ப் ேம என்ைன ளாத் யரத் ல் ஆழ்த் ள்ள .
பா க்கப்பட்ட ஒவ்ெவா ம்பத் ற் ம் ஈ ெசய்ய யாத இழப் இந்த மரணங்கள். அந்த ம்பங்க க் ஏற்பட் ள்ள இழப் ம், வ ம் சராசரி மனிதனாகக் கடந் ெசல் ம் மனநிைல ல் என் மனம் இப்ேபா இல்ைல. இறந்தவரக் ளின் ஒவ்ெவா ம்பத் ற் ம் அண் ணனாக, தம் யாக, மகனாக, அந்த ம்பங்களின் கன கைள ம், நம் க்ைகைய ம் மந் ெசல் ம் ஒ உறவாகேவ என வாழ்க்ைக பயணம் இ க் ம் என் பைத, இறப் ன் வ ைய
வய ேலேய உணரந் ்த ஒ வனாக உ டன் ேறன்.
யர ம், க்க ம் மட் ேம என் மனைதச் ழ்ந் க் ம் இவ்ேவைள ல், இழப் கைளச் சந் த்த என் உற க க் ஒ உறவாய் என் எண் ணங்கைள ப ரந் ் ெகாண் ள்ேளன்.
‘தரம் த் ன் வாழ் தைன கவ் ம் இ ல் தரம் ேம ெவல் ம்!’
This broadly translates to English as:
“For the past twenty-four hours, I am experiencing the greatest sorrow of my life. These deaths continue to shake my heart. I am struggling, unable to move past the pain of death and the cries of those people. As a five-year-old boy, I felt the pain of death when I witnessed my mother’s suicide. These deaths have now brought that pain back to me. Even at this moment, I am unable to move beyond this tragic event, and the anguish of the families who have lost their loved ones has plunged me into unrelenting sorrow. These deaths are an irreparable loss for every affected family. My heart is not in a state to move past the loss and pain these families are enduring, as an ordinary human being would. I solemnly declare, as someone who understood the pain of death at a young age, that my life’s journey will be as a brother, a younger sibling, a son, and a relation carrying the dreams and hopes of those families. In this moment, when sorrow and grief alone envelop my heart, I share my thoughts as a relation to those who have faced these losses. ‘Though deceit may seize the life of righteousness, In the end, righteousness will prevail!’”.
11. The social media post (tweet) on X.com forming the subject matter of the Impugned FIR was posted on 11:28 PM on 29.09.2025 along with a video snippet of an incident on expressing anger and anguish at the video capturing an incident of the night of 27.09.2025 where a police officer can be seen acting with brutality with an individual. Approximately 15 minutes after the tweet/post was first made, the Petitioner edited the same to remove any reference to Nepal and Sri Lanka. Ultimately, the Petitioner deleted the entire tweet/post at 12:02 AM on 30.09.2025.
12. The content of the original tweet/post posted on 11:28 PM on 29.09.2025 are set out below: சாைல ல் நடந் ெசன்றாேல த ய …
ச க வைலதளங்களில் க த் ப ட்டாேல ைக ….
இப்ப ஆ ம் வரக் ்கத் ன் அ வ களாக காவல் ைற மா
ேபானால் ட் க் இைளஞரக் ளின் ரட் தான் ஒேர வ .
எப்ப இலங்ைக ம், ேநபாளத் ம் இைளஞரக் ம், genz தைல ைற ம் ஒன்றாய் அ காரத் ற் எ ரான ரட் ைய
உ வாக் க் காட் னாரக் ேளா அேத ேபால இங் ம் இைளஞரக் ளின் எ ச் நிக ம்.
அந்த எ ச் தான் ஆட் மாற்றத் ற்கான அ தத் ளமாக ம் அரச பயங்கரவாதத் ற்கான ைரயாக ம் இ க்கப்ேபா ற .
ேபய் அரசாண் டால் ணந் ன் ம் சாஸ் ரங்கள்!
Translated to English as under:
“If you walk on the road, you will be beaten by police baton…
If you post on social media, you will be arrested…
If the Police Department has become the servants/boot-licking of ruling party, the only way to restore is a youth revolution.
The youth and ‘genz’ generation came together and created a revolution against the authorities in Sri Lanka and Nepal, a youth uprising will occur here too.
The said uprising is going to be the foundation for political/regime change and the end of state violent/terrorism.
When the demon rules, even the scriptures will become instruments to devour the dead…”
13. The above tweet/post was edited by the Petitioner approximately 15 minutes after first posting to remove any reference to Nepal and Sri Lanka. The edited tweet/post was as below: சாைல ல் நடந் ெசன்றாேல த ய …
ச க வைலதளங்களில் க த் ப ட்டாேல ைக ….
இப்ப ஆ ம் வரக் ்கத் ன் அ வ களாக காவல் ைற மா
ேபானால் ட் க் இைளஞரக் ளின் ரட் தான் ஒேர வ .
இைளஞரக் ம், genz தைல ைற ம் ஒன்றாய் அ காரத் ற் எ ரான ரட் ைய உ வாக் க் காட் னாரக் ேளா அேத ேபால இங் ம் இைளஞரக் ளின் எ ச் நிக ம்.
அந்த எ ச் தான் ஆட் மாற்றத் ற்கான அ தத் ளமாக ம் அரச பயங்கரவாதத் ற்கான ைரயாக ம் இ க்கப்ேபா ற .
ேபய் அரசாண் டால் ணந் ன் ம் சாஸ் ரங்கள்!
Translated to English as under:
“If you walk on the road, you will be beaten by police baton…
If you post on social media, you will be arrested…
If the Police Department has become the servants/boot-licking of
ruling party, the only way to restore is a youth revolution.
Just as the youth and ‘genz’ generation came together and created a revolution against the authorities, a youth uprising will occur here too.
The said uprising is going to be the foundation for political/regime change and the end of state violent/terrorism.
When the demon rules, even the scriptures will become instruments to devour the dead…”
14. The Petitioner ultimately deleted the tweet/post in its entirety at 12:02am on 30.09.2025. Therefore, the tweet which is the subject matter of the impugned FIR remained on the Petitioner’s account handle “@AadhavArjuna” for only 34 minutes before it was deleted in its entirety.
15. The last line of the tweet/post, namely, “When the demon rules, even the scriptures will become instruments to devour the dead…” is a quotation from the poet Bharathiyar’s Panchali Sabatham in which he describes the anger and anguish of Draupadi as she condemns the injustice witnessed in the court, particularly the approval given by the so-called scholars of law (Saaththirimār).
The line is extracted from the following stanza of the poem:
த ழ் பத் :
“தக்க நீர் ெசய் ர்; த மத் க் செ் சய்ைக ஒக் ம்” எனக் உகந்தனராம் சாத் ரிமார்! ேபயர ெசய்தால், ணந் ன் ம் சாத் ரங்கள்.
மாய ணராத மன்னவைனச் தாட வற் த் க் ேகடட் தான் வஞ்சைனேயா? ேநரை் மேயா?
“Thakkathunīr seythīr; tharumathtuk kicceykai okkum” enak kūri ukanthanarām sāththirimār!
Pēyarasu seythāl, piṇamthiṇṇum sāththiraṅkaḷ. Māya muṇarātha maṉṉavaṉaic cūthāḍa vaṟpūruththik kēṭṭathutāṉ vañcaṉaiyō? Nērmaiyō?
The above stanza of the poem is translated as under:
“‘What you have done is right; this deed is fitting for Dharma (Virtue)’—so said and rejoiced the scholars of law!” (Draupadi notes the irony of the scholars supporting the wicked act.)
“If a demon rules, the shastras (scriptures/laws) become instruments that devour the dead!” (This is the powerful quote. She means that under an evil, oppressive government, the very laws and moral codes, meant to protect life, are twisted into tools that further exploit and consume the already suffering populace—the ‘dead body’.)
“To compel a king who knew not trickery to play a game of dice—was that deceit? Or honesty?” (She challenges the hypocrisy of the entire situation.)
In essence, Draupadi is expressing her outrage that even the sacred texts and legal scholars become corrupted and support tyranny when an oppressive, unrighteous ruler (Pēy Arasu – Demon’s Rule) is in power. The laws then cease to protect the people and instead become parasitic, destroying the dignity of the defeated.
16. The above quotation from Bharatiyar makes it very clear that the post was an expression of anguish intended to call out the injustice of the State machinery. Far from calling for violent rebellion, the post was a plea for a change in the government through the exercise of democratic action.
17. Thereafter, an FIR dated 30.09.2025 bearing Crime No. 47 of 2025 registered against the Petitioner under Sections 192, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at P.S. CCD-I Chennai North. The FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognisable offence. None of the ingredients of the offences as stated in the FIR are made out from the allegations stated in the FIR.
18. The allegations in the FIR, even if taken to be true, do not satisfy the essential ingredients for any of the offences, as provided below:
TABLE OF OFFENCES
Section Ingredients of the
Offence Ingredients of Offence Not Satisfied
S. 192
(imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both)
Cognizable/
Bailable
•
•
• Acting malignantly, or
wantonly by doing anything which is
illegal
Gives provocation to any person
Intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed The Petitioner has not done anything which is illegal. Rather, he has exercised his fundamental right to dissent under Article 19(1)(a). Making statements of political critique, however strong, is an exercise of the right to free speech and not an inherently ‘illegal act’.
The Petitioner’s statements in the post are not an explicit or implicit provocation or direction or instruction to commit violence or rioting. It is a call to turn out and vote in the upcoming elections.
The link between the Petitioner’s political rhetoric and the likelihood of rioting is too remote and conjectural to satisfy the required mens rea for this offence.
S. 196 (1) (b)
(imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both)
Cognizable/
Non-Bailable
• Commits any act which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities The Petitioner’s statement contains no reference whatsoever to any religious, racial, linguistic, regional, or caste group. The Petitioner’s statement focuses on police brutality, public accountability, the relationship between the citizenry and the State apparatus, and bringing about a change in government through the people’s voices and therefore cannot by any stretch of imagination be described as falling within actions “prejudicial to the
• And which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity; or maintenance of harmony” between
religious, racial, caste groups.
The FIR makes no averment that any violence occurred as a result of the
Petitioner’s post.
S. 197 (1) (d)
(imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both)
Cognizable/
Non-Bailable
•
•
•
• Whoever, by words
either spoken or written or by signs or by visible
representations or through electronic communication or
otherwise
Asserts, counsels,
advises, propagates or publishes that
Any class of persons
shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community,
Be denied, or deprived of their rights as
citizens of India; The Petitioner’s statement contains no reference whatsoever to any religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste or community group. The Petitioner’s
statement focuses on police brutality, public accountability, the relationship between the citizenry and the State apparatus, and bringing about a change in government through elections and therefore cannot by any stretch of imagination be described as propagating deprivation of a rights of a group of citizens by reason of the religious, racial, caste group identity.
S. 353(1)(b)
(imprisonment which may extend to three • Makes, publishes or
circulates any statement, false There is no false information or rumour made in the allegedly offending social media post. Rather, it highlights the occurrence of gross police brutality against ordinary people which is factually
years, or with fine, or with both.)
Non-
Cognizable/
Non-Bailable
•
•
• information, rumour, or report
With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause,
Fear or alarm to the
public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be
induced to
Commit an offence against the State or against the public
tranquillity; supported by the video evidence posted along with the post. The video posted along with the post is not denied as fake by the complainant.
The social media post also does not contain any statement or report with the intent of causing fear or alarm to the public so as to induce them to commit any offence. It seeks to empower the people to show their voice by participating in the upcoming elections. The FIR does not make reference to any violence as having occurred as a result of the alleged incitement portrayed in the tweet.
S. 353(2)
(imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.)
Cognizable/
Non-Bailable
•
•
• Makes, publishes or
circulates any
statement or report containing false
information, rumour or
alarming news, including through
electronic means, With intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote
On grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or The social media post does not contain any false information or rumour. The social media post does not contain any statement that could even remotely be described as making a reference to any religious, linguistic, caste groups, or to promoting enmity between groups.
any other
whatsoever, ground
• Feelings of enmity,
hatred or ill will
between groups. different
19. The tweet in question in no way reflects the Petitioner’s involvement, support, assistance, or complicity in any conspiracy to overthrow the State, or to endanger the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of India. His criticism of the ruling regime, however impassioned, does not call for a violent uprising or for overthrowing the government in any unlawful way, and is not tantamount to any criminal offence. The fact that the Petitioner has called for a political regime change should be read in the context of the upcoming State Assembly Elections in the State of Tamil Nadu, and the people’s ability to change their governments through elections conducted cyclically and peacefully, under the aegis of the Hon’ble Election Commission of India and in accordance with the Constitution.
20. When an offence punishable under Section 192, 196, 197 or 353 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strongminded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.
21. In the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1, Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15 SCC 35, and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156, the ingredient of mens rea has been read into Section 153-A of IPC (in pari materia with Section 196 BNS). This was held to be equally applicable to Sections 196 and 197 of the BNS by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 678. There is absolutely no necessary mens rea in the present case which is clearly discernible from the context in which the social media post was made and by the fact that it was almost immediately deleted.
22. When viewed along with the video, it is absolutely clear that the tweet was a response to police violence and mala fide arrests that had occurred in Karur following the tragedy. The tweet strongly criticises the impunity and highhandedness of the police under the present ruling government and calls for democratically overthrowing the government in power. Such criticism in the country or the State of Tamil Nadu does not constitute any offence under the BNS. The social media post in question in no way reflects any involvement, support, assistance, or complicity, in any conspiracy to overthrow the State, or to endanger the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of India. Its criticism of the ruling regime in power in the State Government, however impassioned, was without asking for a violent uprising or overthrow in any way, and is not tantamount to inciting disaffection against the country or inciting commission of rioting. The fact that the social media post has called for a political regime change should be read in the context of the upcoming State Assembly Elections in the State of Tamil Nadu, and the people’s ability to change their governments through elections conducted cyclically and peacefully, under the aegis of the Hon’ble Election Commission of India and in accordance with the Constitution. The reference in the social media post to young people’s power witnessed in Nepal and Sri Lanka was only to show that political leaders are ultimately appointees of the voting public and must be accountable and answerable to the people who have put them into power. However, even this portion of the post was instantaneously deleted. The entire post was deleted at 12:02 AM on 30.09.2025. Thus, the post was available on the internet for a very brief period in the late hours of the night and could not have ever been intended to foment and precipitate feelings against the integrity and sovereignty of India or to incite violence by the public. No violent action by any person occurred pursuant to the allegedly offending social media post and the FIR does not make any averment that any such actual violence occurred as a result of the alleged incitement and provocation in the tweet.
23. It is submitted that mere criticism of police brutality in the country or the State of Tamil Nadu does not constitute any offence under the BNS. Criticism of the State, including sharp, discomforting or unpopular speech, is protected under the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The freedom of speech of persons in public life is not only an important facet of individual liberty, but is also a key principle for a vibrant democracy. The active participation of opposition political parties in public discourse is a pivotal component of the system of checks and balances intrinsic to Parliamentary democracy. Through their exhortations and public questioning, Opposition leaders perform the task of holding the government in power accountable for their actions. Opposition leaders fulfil the role of informing the public about transgressions by public authorities. This also facilitates an informed citizenry and propels public deliberation on important public issues.
24. The right to freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, embodying the democratic commitment to allow ample space for dissent, debate and criticism, especially of those in power. The Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed that this right must be zealously safeguarded. Speech can be curtailed only on the narrow grounds enumerated in Article 19(2). The criminal law cannot be used to stifle legitimate expression, especially criticism of the government.
25. The Petitioner is therefore approaching this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR on the following amongst other grounds:
GROUNDS
A. THAT the present FIR registered against the Petitioner does not disclose the commission of a cognisable offence in law and therefore is liable to be quashed.
B. THAT the allegations made in the FIR/ Complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie make out a case against the Petitioner. Further, the allegations made in the Criminal Complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Petitioner. As such, in light of the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
C. THAT the FIR has been registered even when no prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioner.
D. THAT the instant FIR is an abuse of process of law, and has been registered by the Respondent police without any application of mind at all.
E. THAT the continuation of investigation based on no foundation would amount to an abuse of power and harassment of the Petitioner.
F. THAT the FIR does not disclose the existence of any material to demonstrate the commission of any offence whatsoever.
G. THAT when an offence punishable under Section 192, 196, 197 or 353 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strongminded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.
H. THAT in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1, Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15 SCC 35, and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of
Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156, the ingredient of mens rea has been read into Section 153-A of
IPC (in pari materia with Section 196 BNS). This was held to be equally applicable to Sections
196 and 197 of the BNS by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678. There is absolutely no mens rea in the present case which is clearly discernible from the context in which the social media post was made and by the fact that it was almost immediately deleted.
I. THAT Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (supra) that a preliminary inquiry under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is mandatory in a case involving a question of freedom of speech and expression, whereas no such preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to registration of the present FIR: “Therefore, when an allegation is of the commission of an offence covered by the law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if subSection (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. This will ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected. Therefore, in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in sub-Section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant permission to the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Therefore, when the commission of cognizable offences is alleged, where punishment is for imprisonment up to 7 years, which is based on spoken or written words, it will always be appropriate to exercise the option under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 and conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed.”
J. THAT if any reasonable doubt was entertained as to whether the statements in the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable case, a preliminary inquiry ought to have been conducted to discern whether, in fact, a cognisable offence had been committed as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
K. THAT the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (supra) quashed an FIR registered against a political leader on the basis of a social media post on X.com on the ground that no offence under Section 196 or 197 BNS could be said to be made out from the contents of the social media post since its “words do not bring about or promote disharmony or feelings of hatred or ill-will. It only seeks to challenge the injustice made by the ruler. It is impossible to say that the words used by the appellant disturb or are likely to disturb public tranquillity.”
L. THAT the Petitioner’s opinion as a citizen of this country, with roots in the State of Tamil Nadu, on the state of affairs in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Republic of India, do not amount to either a conspiracy or an attempt to promote enmity, defame or cause public mischief. The Petitioner echoes the anguish expressed by thousands of citizens of this country who used social media platforms to express their views which were critical of the ruling party, its policies, and its ineffectiveness. This exercise is an inherent part of the Petitioner’s right to freedom of speech as well as his right to live with dignity under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution respectively.
M. THAT the opinions in the allegedly offending social media post were expressed by the Petitioner in response to certain shameful incidents of police brutality that had taken place.
N. THAT the Petitioner, having highlighted concerns that may have been ignored or downsized in the mainstream/social media of the country, through his tweets, is being attacked through the FIR for his views, despite there being no criminal intention or act in question that has taken place.
O. THAT the FIR has been registered only to harass the accused for an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
P. THAT the Petitioner is being caused undue harassment for simply exercising his right to freedom of expression, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution whose sanctity has been preserved by a catena of judgments of this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This position was established as early as in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 and Brij Bhushan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 129 where the Supreme Court declared that unless speech actually threatens the security of or tends to overthrow the State, any law imposing restriction upon the same would not fall within the purview of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Q. THAT in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955, the Supreme Court confined the offence of sedition to speech involving “intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence” with the Constitution Bench clarifying that “that strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come within the section.” Thereafter in 2022, observing the anti-democratic effects of the indiscriminate use of the offence of sedition to stifle dissent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, vide its Order dated 11.05.2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 682 of 2021 titled, “S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India.” A petition challenging the newly enacted Section 152 of the BNS, bearing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720/2025 has also been tagged with this matter.
R. THAT in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788, the Supreme Court heralded freedom of speech as the ‘Ark of the Covenant’ in every democracy, exhorting that “the
faith of a citizen is that political wisdom and virtue will sustain themselves in the free market of ideas so long as the channels of communication are left open.
S. THAT in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (1986) 1 SCC 133, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “it is the inalienable right of everyone to comment freely upon any matter of public importance. This right is one of the pillars of individual liberty-freedom of speech, which our Court has always unfailingly guarded.”
T. THAT this principle was deepened in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574, where the Supreme Court rejected the notion that freedom of speech and expression could be curtailed because of any anticipated hostile reaction.
U. THAT as modes of communication evolved, the Supreme Court extended these principles to electronic communication. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down for its vagueness and overbreadth, with the Court warning that “imprecise restrictions” produce a “chilling effect on freedom of speech”.
V. THAT in Kaushal Kishore v. State of U.P., (2023) 4 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench reaffirmed that “any restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression protected under Art.
19(1)(a) which does not fall within the four corners of Art. 19(2), held, will be unconstitutional”.
W. THAT in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that allegedly offending speech must be assessed in its “content, intent and context” while authoritatively holding that: “Freedom to express and speak is the most important condition for political democracy. Law and policies are not democratic unless they have been made and subjected to democratic process including questioning and criticism. Dissent and criticism of the elected Government’s policy, when puissant, deceptive or even false would be ethically wrong, but would not invite penal action. The ‘market place of ideas’ and ‘pursuit of truth’ principle are fully applicable. Government should be left out from adjudicating what is true or false, good or bad, valid or invalid, as these aspects should be left for open discussion in the public domain. (…) Political speech relating to government policies requires greater protection for preservation and promotion of democracy. Falsity of the accusation would not be sufficient to constitute criminal offence of ‘hate speech’”. [Paragraph 78]
X. THAT in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12, the Court powerfully invoked Article 19(1)(a) to protect a journalist from facing multiple criminal cases on the basis of his public comments, observing that “India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.”
Y. THAT vide the tweet on the basis of which criminality is being unfairly and unjustly ascribed to the Petitioner, no calls for violence were made by the Petitioner. In fact, he had only asked the citizens to exercise their rights available against atrocities committed by the State machinery and agencies.
Z. THAT the FIR does not contain any averment that any actual violence broke out as a result of the incitement and provocation brought about by the allegedly criminal tweet.
AA. THAT mere criticism of the state of affairs in the country or the State of Tamil Nadu does not constitute any offence under the BNS. The tweet in question in no way reflects the Petitioner’s involvement, support, assistance, or complicity, in any conspiracy to overthrow the State, or to endanger the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of India. His criticism of the ruling regime, without asking for a violent uprising or overthrow in any way, does not tantamount to any criminal offence. The mere fact that the Petitioner has called for a political regime change should be read in the context of the people’s ability to change their governments through elections conducted cyclically and peacefully, under the aegis of the Hon’ble Election Commission of India and in accordance with the Constitution.
BB. THAT The fact that the Petitioner did not, in any way, call for violence, and that no violence actually resulted from the social media post. There are no averments in the FIR that violence resulted from the posting of the allegedly inflammatory post.
CC. THAT the Petitioner is being targeted for his opinions despite a lack of evidence about him possessing any mala fide intention against any individual, community or the State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294 that Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions.
DD. THAT the Petitioner needs to be protected against coercive steps and his devices need to be protected from the disproportionate act of seizure during investigation. The seizure of his devices, in light of the allegations in the FIR, would have a disproportionate and excessive impact on his work. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the legal issue of the need for guidelines in the seizure of the digital devices of journalists in Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 395 of 2022. In the absence of such guidelines, considering the nature of allegations against the Petitioner, and considering that no seizure of devices is required for the investigation, the Petitioner should be protected against the same by the intervention of this Hon’ble Court.
EE. THAT the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, (supra) while quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, based on a poem recited in the background of a social media video, categorically held that words or expressions which neither refer to any religion, caste, community nor promote disharmony or enmity cannot attract penal provisions of this nature. The Court observed:
“Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows, satire and art, make the life of human beings more meaningful. The Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.” (Para 38)
FF. THAT the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. State of Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. 7550 of 2019, order dated 08.04.2025, upheld the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). In that case, the FIR was registered based on a tweet expressing criticism of a religious figure. The Supreme Court held that once it is found that the speech in question does not satisfy the ingredients of the penal provisions invoked, the Court must nip the mischief at the threshold, without moral policing.
GG. THAT the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2023) 14 SCC 286, after analysing the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh (supra), held that mere criticism of the Government or its measures, however strong or unpalatable, does not amount to an offence unless the words are intended to incite violence or have a pernicious tendency to create public disorder.
The Court observed:
“A citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder; and that it is only when the words or expressions have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order”
HH. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2024) 7 SCC 555, held that where the contents of a social media post do not disclose the foundational ingredients of the offences alleged, continuation of criminal proceedings is unwarranted. In that case, the FIR was registered for offences under Sections 153A and 504 IPC based on a Facebook news post, but the Court found that the publication did not refer to any groups or communities nor did it contain any element capable of provoking breach of peace. The Court observed:
“Upon careful perusal of the offending news article… it is crystal clear that there is no reference to any group or groups of people in the said article. The publication focuses totally on the complainant… These words have no connection whatsoever with a group or groups of people or communities. Hence, the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153-A IPC are totally lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR.” (paras 26 & 28)
II. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2021, while quashing an FIR registered under Sections 153-A and 505(1)(c) IPC in relation to a Facebook post, held that criticism of State inaction and calls for equality cannot be construed as hate speech or as promoting enmity between groups. The Court reiterated that for offences under Sections 153-A and 505(2), there must be promotion of enmity or hatred between two groups, coupled with mens rea. Relying on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) 7 SCC 431 and Ramesh v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 668, the Court held that words must be judged by the standard of a reasonable person and that mere incitement of feelings of one group without reference to another does not attract these provisions.
The Court observed:
“A close scrutiny of the Facebook post would indicate that the agony of the appellant was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits… In our understanding, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to promote class/community hatred. As there is no attempt made by the appellant to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 153-A and 505(1)(c) have not been made out. Where allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed.” (para 13)
Similarly, in the present case, the statements attributed to the Petitioner are expressions of dissent and criticism of governmental or police conduct. There is no reference to any community or attempt to promote hatred between groups. The FIR is based on a mischaracterisation of the Petitioner’s speech, which, when read in its entirety, is a political statement within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a).
JJ. THAT the Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing.
26. The Petitioner has a strong prima facie case as no offence under any penal law has been made out. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner as the ongoing criminal proceedings initiated against him have gravely prejudiced the Petitioner’s exercise of his fundamental right to free speech and causing him to apprehend unlawful deprivation of personal liberty, thereby causing irreparable injury to him.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of INTERIM STAY of all proceedings as against the Petitioner herein pertaining to FIR in Crime No. 47 of 2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police, pending disposal of the main criminal original petition and thus render justice.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of INTERIM STAY restraining the 1st Respondent Police from taking any coercive measures against the Petitioner, pending disposal of the main criminal original petition and thus render justice.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for records pertaining to FIR in Crime No. 47 of 2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and QUASH the same and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 8th day of October, 2025.
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Pranav Gopalakrishnan, Advocate
(D/1004/2018)
In the High Court of
Judicature at Madras
Cr OP No of 2025
Against
Crime No 47 of 2025
Aadhav Arjuna
… Petitioner / Accused
-vs-
State
Represented by Inspector of Police
Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai
North & Anr
… Respondents
PETITION U/S 528 OF BHARATIYA
NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,
2023
Pranav Gopalakrishnan (D/1004/2018)
R Ganesh Kanna (MS/1695/2003)
Mayan H Jain (MS/3519/2019)
Yash S Vijay (MAH/3059/2014)
Pranjal Agarwal (MAH/13600/2021)
Dixita Gohil (G/63/2022)
Mohan Parthasarathy (MS/5896/2023)
Counsel for Petitioner/Accused
