Mere Forwarding of Social Media Content Not an Offence Under BNS

Source: High Court of Telangana 

Why in News? 

Justice K. Sujana of the High Court of Telangana, in the case of Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2026), held that forwarding or circulating social media content — without any intent to incite communal enmity or disturb public tranquillity — does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 353 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).  

• The Court further held that registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident constitutes an abuse of process of law, and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners relying on its earlier common order and the Supreme Court's precedent in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001).  

What was the Background of Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petition arose from FIR No. 86 of 2025 registered at Nakrekal Police Station, Telangana, against the petitioners — arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 3 — for offences under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to statements conducing to public mischief. 
• A Congress party leader had alleged that certain YouTube channels and television media telecast false news linking him with an accused in the SSC Telugu Board exam paper leakage case.  
• It was alleged that the petitioners, along with others, forwarded such content on social media platforms, causing damage to his reputation, political career, and mental distress. 
• The petitioners contended that they had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and that no mens rea or intention to incite enmity between communities — a necessary ingredient under the BNS provisions — was present.  
• They further pointed out that multiple FIRs had been registered for the same incident, and that the Court had already quashed proceedings against similarly placed accused in connected petitions. 
• The State opposed the petition, submitting that the accused had deliberately circulated false news with intent to harm the complainant's reputation, and that investigation had revealed incriminating social media posts. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that even accepting the allegations at face value, the statutory ingredients of Section 353(1)(c) and Section 353(2) of the BNS were not made out against the petitioners. Mere forwarding of content on social media, absent any intent to incite communal enmity or disturb public tranquillity, does not satisfy the requirements of the provision. 
• The Court relied on its earlier common order dated 09.09.2025 in connected criminal petitions, where it had held that similar social media posts disclosed no intent to incite communal hatred. Finding the present case squarely covered by that decision, the Court held that continuation of proceedings would be impermissible and would amount to an abuse of process of law. 
• The Court further reiterated, following T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, that registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident is itself an abuse of process. The Criminal Petition was accordingly allowed and the FIR quashed 

What is Section 353 of BNS? 

Section 353 BNS - Statements Conducing to Public Mischief: 

• Section 353(1) punishes making, publishing or circulating statements, false information, rumours or reports (including through electronic means) that: 
• May cause military personnel to mutiny or fail in duty; or 
• May cause public fear or alarm inducing offences against the State or public tranquillity; or 
• May incite one class/community to commit offences against another class/community. 
• Section 353(2) specifically targets statements or reports containing false information, rumours or alarming news (including through electronic means) that create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, regional groups, castes or communities on any ground whatsoever. 
• Section 353(3) provides enhanced punishment when offences under sub-section (2) are committed in places of worship or during religious ceremonies (imprisonment up to five years plus fine). 
• Punishment: Generally imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both (except sub-section 3). 
• Exception: No offence if the person had reasonable grounds for believing the statement was true and acted in good faith without malicious intent.