The Tripura High Court has decided not to dismiss the criminal defamation and Information Technology Act charges against content creator Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty. The charges stem from allegedly derogatory online posts about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Agartala Mayor Dipak Majumdar, and the deity Mata Tripureshwari. This decision was rendered in the case of Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty @ Madhavi Biswas Chakraborty @ Moon Moon Biswas vs State of Tripura & ors.
Legal Proceedings
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice T Amarnath Goud and Justice S Datta Purkayastha, reviewed two petitions that requested the quashing of FIRs lodged at East Agartala and West Agartala police stations. These FIRs were filed under Sections 356 of the BNS (defamation) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which deals with the publication of obscene material online.
The court clarified its role at the quashing stage, emphasizing that it is limited to determining whether the FIR and charge-sheet prima facie indicate the components of an offense. The court does not conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the ultimate strength of the allegations at this stage.
Findings of the Court
The Bench found that the statements made by the petitioner appeared to mock the Prime Minister and the Mayor, as well as offend religious sentiments related to Mata Tripureshwari. These actions were deemed sufficient for defamation claims, allowing the complainants to pursue legal action.
It was noted that the investigation remains incomplete. Although the investigating officers confiscated the petitioner’s mobile phone, they have yet to retrieve the relevant video clips or screen recordings. The court allowed further investigation under Section 193(9) of the BNSS, which permits additional investigation even post-charge sheet filing. This means the police can still recover missing evidence, potentially from cloud storage or deleted data, and file a supplementary charge-sheet if necessary.
More Read
Free Speech Considerations
The argument that the petitioner’s posts were protected under the right to free speech, as per Article 19(1)(a), was rejected by the court. The court upheld that defamation constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) and that freedom of expression does not include harming another’s reputation. The judgment cited precedents set by the Supreme Court in Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar and Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand, affirming that an FIR need not detail every allegation exhaustively and courts should focus on the overall essence of accusations.
Current Status
Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty was initially arrested but later granted interim bail by the Tripura High Court on January 7, 2026. After a trial court denied the police’s request for custodial interrogation, she received permanent bail on February 13. Since the legal proceedings were still at the preliminary stage, involving the accused’s first appearance and the sharing of case documents, the court deemed the petitions for quashing premature and dismissed them.
Senior Advocate P Roy Barman, along with advocate T Dhar, represented the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Raju Datta appeared on behalf of the State.
