The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to author Madhu Purnima Kishwar in an FIR registered over a social media post allegedly containing defamatory and misleading content related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary dismissed the plea on Friday, holding that the material on record disclosed sufficient grounds for the continuation of the investigation at the pre-arrest stage and that no case was made out for the grant of protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As per the FIR registered against Kishwar, she re-tweeted a purported video on the social media platform X, which was allegedly circulated with commentary that attracted widespread attention and public reaction. The Court noted that although the video had initially appeared on other digital platforms, it was after being shared by the petitioner that it gained significant traction, reportedly crossing 1,74,000 views, and triggered speculation regarding a constitutional functionary.
The petitioner had been booked for multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including provisions relating to promoting enmity between groups, cheating, forgery and use of forged electronic records, publication of statements causing public mischief and criminal defamation, along with provisions under the Information Technology Act.
The prosecution, as reflected in the status report filed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh, alleged that the video was originally uploaded by another user and subsequently disseminated further through various social media platforms before being reshared by the petitioner, who has a substantial online following. It was further contended that the post contributed to the amplification of allegedly misleading content and resulted in reputational harm to the head of the government.
The High Court also took note of the petitioner’s non-cooperation with the investigating agency. The order recorded that despite issuance of notices on multiple dates, including 20.04.2026, 26.04.2026 and 05.05.2026, the petitioner did not join the investigation, while other co-accused persons had appeared before the authorities.
Rejecting the plea, the Court observed that there exists a clear distinction between legitimate criticism and content that is capable of creating public mischief, incitement or social disharmony, particularly when disseminated by individuals with significant digital reach. It held that social media posts, when amplified at scale, may have wide-ranging consequences and can potentially affect public order and communal harmony.
The Court further observed that individuals with substantial influence on digital platforms carry a heightened responsibility while publishing or forwarding content, given the speed and scale at which misinformation can circulate. It noted that regulatory safeguards in the context of online speech assume greater importance where content has the potential to mislead or provoke public reaction.
The Bench also recorded that the investigation was at a nascent stage and several crucial aspects, including the origin of the video, the chain of dissemination, the involvement of other persons and the broader conspiracy angle, were yet to be examined by the investigating agency. In this context, the Court held that it would be premature to rule out the existence of a prima facie offence.
The petitioner had argued that she had merely re-tweeted a short video without any intent to defame or mislead, and that she could not be held criminally liable for subsequent comments generated by third parties. It was also submitted that offences of forgery were not attracted against her as she was not the creator of the original video, and that she had no criminal antecedents.
The prosecution, however, maintained that the petitioner, having a wide social media following of approximately 18 lakh users, played a role in amplifying the circulation of the content, thereby contributing to its wider dissemination and alleged defamatory impact.
In view of the above findings, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, holding that custodial interrogation and further investigation could not be ruled out at this stage.
The post Punjab and Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail to author Madhu Kishwar in case over defamatory post against PM Narendra Modi appeared first on India Legal.