Hyderabad: The Telangana BJP on Friday demanded immediate and exemplary legal action against those responsible for creating, disseminating and amplifying morphed, abusive and derogatory content targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the CJP-led NEET paper leak agitation, asserting that freedom of speech can never become a licence for organised abuse and character assassination.
The state BJP Chief Spokesperson and Media in-charge N V Subhash, said that they have formally approached the Hyderabad Cyber Crime Police seeking action under the relevant provisions of law against the perpetrators as well as those who allegedly enabled and monetised such objectionable content on digital platforms.
At the heart of this issue lies, he said, a fundamental constitutional question remain—does repeated and organised public abuse directed at a constitutional office-holder fall within the ambit of free speech or does it amount to actionable misconduct? “The answer lies in the Constitution itself,” he asseted.
Subash said, the Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
However, Article 19(2) equally empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, public order, decency and morality.
The Constitution protects liberty, but it does not legitimise lawlessness. Rights come with responsibilities and accountability necessarily follows when legal limits are allegedly breached.
“We welcome criticism, political opposition and democratic debate. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has perhaps faced more criticism than any other political leader in contemporary India. Criticism is not the issue. Organised and vulgar abuse masquerading as political activism is,” he pointed.
He made it clear that democracy permits disagreement—not digital lynching.
Subash said, India’s youth deserve better than hatred served by algorithms. Social media platforms cannot become weapons of political radicalisation or safe havens for coordinated campaigns aimed at poisoning young minds and normalising abuse as acceptable public discourse.
“META may own the platform, but it certainly does not own India’s democratic values. No multinational corporation enjoys immunity from the laws of this country. If digital platforms fail to act responsibly despite being repeatedly alerted to objectionable content, they too must be held accountable in accordance with the law,” he said.
Subash said, the Telangana BJP’s decision to approach the police and seek judicial remedies is neither about suppressing dissent nor silencing criticism. It is about drawing a clear constitutional and moral distinction between criticism and calculated abuse.
He also felt that those selectively invoking freedom of speech today must explain their deafening silence when critics were jailed in Opposition-ruled states. Individuals have been arrested and imprisoned for social media posts criticising political leaders including Uddhav. He also slammed Thackeray, Sharad Pawar and Arvind Kejriwal. Principles cannot become selective conveniences depending upon who occupies the political spectrum.
No one is above the law—not individuals, not political organisations and certainly not digital platforms.
He said the courts will ultimately decide the legal consequences of these acts. But one thing is beyond debate—organised abuse, digital vigilantism and character assassination can never become acceptable political discourse in the world’s largest democracy, he concluded.
