Chennai commentator booked over temple-land posts, High Court quashes cybercrime FIR
Chennai cybercrime police registered an FIR over posts linking the State Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister to a temple-land registration. The Madras High Court quashed the FIR on 28 August 2026, holding the cited public-order offences were not made out.
This page records what the cited court records and reports say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The FIR in Crime No. 82 of 2026 stands quashed, with liberty to bring a separate defamation case.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the complaint was given by the junior personal assistant of the State Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister, alleging wilful malicious disinformation on X and Instagram about fraudulent registration of land of a Palani temple.
Police registered Crime No. 82 of 2026 for offences under Sections 192, 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS.
The High Court held that no rioting was intended or occurred, and the posts were not shown to promote enmity on religion or community grounds, so none of the three charged offences was made out even if allegations were taken at face value.
The High Court quashed the FIR but left it open to the minister or complainant to pursue civil or criminal defamation, and directed the commentator to file an affidavit expressing regret for an unverified post and undertaking future verification.
What the record says
“The instant post can be treated as false information and the spread of a rumour through electronic means.”
Crl.O.P. No. 20304 of 2026, Madras High Court order dated 28.08.2026, para 19 — read the full text
Punished for a freedom
The state arrested and prosecuted a person for political social-media speech about temple-land management, with no allegation of violence, threats, fraud, minors or coercion.
What we could not confirm
Full post text was not independently verified; the order relies on screenshots enclosed with the complaint. Penalty field is null because no sentence was imposed.