Photo Courtesy: tripuratimes
Agartala: The Tripura High Court rejected a bid to quash two FIRs and charge-sheets against content creator Madhabi Biswas Chakraborty. The court ruled that allegations against her require deeper scrutiny at trial. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Dr. T Amarnath Goud and Justice S Datta Purkayastha, ordered the Investigating Officer to conduct a further probe and file a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 193(9) of the BNSS.
Complaints filed in 2025 at East and West Agartala police stations sparked the legal battle. They accused Biswas of using abusive language against the Prime Minister of India, the Mayor of Agartala, and Mata Tripureshwari. Charges involve Sections 356, 356(2), and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 67 of the IT Act. Biswas was arrested, then released on interim bail in January 2026 before securing permanent bail in February.
Tensions remain high. Biswas alleges home vandalism and assault, while opponents accuse her of threatening the original complainant. Senior Advocate Purushottam Roy Barman argued the case was politically motivated and violated free speech under Article 19(1)(a). Public Prosecutor Raju Datta countered that the remarks warranted trial. The court noted that social media amplifies harm. The bench stated, "At this preliminary stage, allegations must be tested in trial rather than dismissed outright."
The court dismissed the writ petitions on August 5. Biswas keeps the right to present her full defense before the trial court once the supplementary investigation concludes.
Updated at 13th August 2026 at 10:15pm
The court filings reveal that police filed the initial charge-sheets on December 29 and 31, 2025. Records indicate the accused was granted interim bail on January 7, 2026, and a trial court later denied a prosecution request for her custodial interrogation on January 27.
While investigators seized a mobile phone from the accused, they have yet to recover the specific video clips or screen recordings central to the case. The bench noted that while Section 356 of the BNS guards personal reputation, that protection must balance against expression. The judges stated that the right to free speech does not cover defamatory, abusive, or malicious content circulated online. In her claim of harassment, the accused specified that the alleged assault involved both her and her son, adding that police refused to register her complaint regarding the home invasion.
Comments