The Tripura High Court has declined to quash two FIRs and subsequent charge-sheets filed against a content creator over allegedly derogatory and defamatory social media posts targeting 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 dismissed the petitions challenging cases registered at East Agartala Police Station (2025EAG108) and West Agartala Police Station (2025WAG113). 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 charge-sheets filed on December 29 and 31, 2025, arguing that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of defamation and that her statements constituted protected freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with the cases and was granted interim bail by the High Court on January 7, 2026. She was subsequently granted permanent bail by the trial court on February 13 after a request for custodial interrogation was rejected on January 27.

Senior advocate P. Roy Barman, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the cases were politically motivated and that the petitioner had only expressed her views and opinions. He further alleged that her residence was later vandalised and that she and her son were assaulted, while her complaint over the incident was not registered.

Opposing the petitions, the prosecution maintained that the petitioner had deliberately used abusive and derogatory language against the Prime Minister and had made remarks concerning Mata Tripureswari that could hurt the religious sentiments of devotees. The prosecution argued that the investigation had disclosed a prima facie case and that the allegations should be tested during trial.

The High Court observed that social media has become an important platform for communication and expression but cautioned that defamatory or false content can spread rapidly and adversely affect a person's reputation.

On a prima facie assessment, the Bench found that the statements attributed to the petitioner contained criticism and remarks concerning the Prime Minister and the Mayor and, in relation to Mata Tripureswari, could potentially hurt the sentiments of worshippers.

The Court held that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the protection of reputation under Section 356 of the BNS. It observed that freedom of speech does not provide unrestricted protection for defamatory, abusive or malicious material published on social media.

The Bench also noted that the investigation was still incomplete. Although the investigating officer had seized the petitioner's mobile phone, the relevant video clips or screen recordings had not yet been recovered. The Court therefore allowed further investigation and permitted the investigating officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 193(9) of the BNSS if additional evidence was recovered.

Finding that the proceedings were still at an initial stage and that the allegations required proper examination during trial, the High Court refused to interfere with the FIRs and charge-sheets.

The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to raise all her legal and factual contentions before the trial court, which was directed to proceed in accordance with law after receiving any supplementary charge-sheet.