Centre for Liberty Condemns Arrest of Political Spokesperson Over Two-Year-Old Television Remarks

Hyderabad, 13 July 2026: The Centre for Liberty strongly condemns the arrest of YSRCP spokesperson Nagarjuna Yadav by Telangana Police from his residence in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, over remarks made during a television debate in which he mocked Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, including by calling him a "delivery boy."

The Centre for Liberty defends freedom of speech even when the speech is harsh, crude or offensive. Undignified political criticism may deserve rebuttal, but it does not justify arrest and criminal prosecution by the state.

The circumstances in which this case began raise serious concerns about the political use of police power. The complaint was submitted on the letterhead of the Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee's Social Media Department and signed by its State Secretary. A ruling-party functionary complained about criticism of his party's Chief Minister, following which Telangana Police registered a criminal case against a YSRCP spokesperson from Andhra Pradesh.

The complaint states that the complainant "came across" the video on 10 July 2026. Yet the same remarks had been publicly reported on 10 July 2024, more than two years before the FIR was registered.

Mr. Yadav has been booked under Sections 192, 352, 353(1) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These provisions concern provocation intended or known to be likely to cause rioting, intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace, statements allegedly threatening public tranquillity and statements allegedly creating enmity between groups. Although the complaint repeatedly invokes public peace and enmity, it identifies no actual riot or breach of peace, no person allegedly induced to commit an offence, and no identifiable classes or communities between whom the remarks created hostility. Nor does it identify any such public-order consequence in the two years since the remarks were first publicly reported.

The complaint expressly sought criminal-defamation charges, yet no defamation provision was included in the registered FIR. Defamation under the BNS is non-cognizable and, standing alone, does not authorise a warrantless arrest. Public-order provisions have instead been invoked to convert an alleged political insult into a cognizable case.

In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2025 INSC 410, the Supreme Court held that police must examine the actual words used, assess their effect by the standards of reasonable and strong-minded persons, and respect the constitutional protection of free speech before treating expression as a criminal offence. That warning is directly relevant here.

The arrest also raises serious procedural concerns. Under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, where a cognizable offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, police must record why arrest is necessary; where arrest is not required, they must issue a notice to appear. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 INSC 115, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that in such cases notice is the rule and arrest a clear exception. The cognizable offences invoked here fall within that range. Telangana Police should disclose whether a notice was served, what reasons for arrest were recorded, and why arrest was considered necessary in a case concerning a two-year-old, recorded television debate.

The threat extends beyond Mr. Yadav. The FIR records "Nagarjuna Yadav & Others" as accused, while the complaint seeks action against the television anchor, Facebook-page handlers and Sakshi channel administrators or operators for hosting or circulating the debate. Any coercive action against journalists, channels or page operators merely for carrying a guest's remarks would be a direct assault on press freedom.

This arrest forms part of a recurring and dangerous pattern across Indian states of using police power to punish political figures and critics for speech. Political disagreements must be settled through debate, elections and public discourse, not through the threat of arrest.

"If even a political party's spokesperson can be arrested for a rude remark on television, no citizen's speech is safe," said Ajay Mallareddy, Director, Centre for Liberty.

We demand that the Telangana authorities take all lawful steps to secure Mr. Yadav's immediate release and bring these criminal proceedings to an end. We further call on the police to take no coercive action against the anchor, channel or page operators merely for hosting or circulating the debate.

All political parties and governments must respect the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Ajay Mallareddy

Centre for Liberty 

Life · Liberty · Property

For media inquiries: Ajay Mallareddy |  ajay@centreforliberty.org