The Congress government in Telangana faced sustained criticism over invoking the UAPA against a social media handle accused of promoting the Bharat Rashtra Samithi and amplifying anti-government narratives, despite its own opposition, articulated by Rahul Gandhi, to the BJP-enacted law for its alleged misuse against political opponents and minority communities, thereby appearing to contradict its stated ideological stance.
The controversy erupted after the Telangana Police invoked provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the social media handle “TeluguScribe”, a platform widely perceived to be aligned with opposition narratives and known for persistently spotlighting governance failures, protests, and dissenting political voices.
Acting through its State Intelligence Department, the police issued a legal notice to X Corp in Texas, seeking granular user data, including registration details, usage logs, and activity records, in what is being construed as an attempt to unmask the individuals operating the account, according to The Wire.
The notice, dated April 18 and issued by a senior intelligence official, cited Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alongside Section 43F of the UAPA, thereby combining procedural authority with a stringent anti-terror legal framework.
While Section 94 enables the summoning of electronic records, Section 43F mandates cooperation with investigative agencies in cases registered under the UAPA, a law ordinarily reserved for matters implicating national security and sovereignty.
The police have justified their action by alleging that the handle disseminated “highly objectionable and filthy language” and circulated morphed multimedia content aimed at defaming public figures and potentially inciting public disorder.
However, critics argue that the invocation of an anti-terror statute in response to allegedly defamatory or provocative online speech represents a disproportionate and coercive escalation.
TeluguScribe, responding to the UAPA case, rejected the characterisation of its activities as unlawful or subversive, asserting instead that it represents “pro-people coverage” and functions as a voice of public accountability. In a statement, the handle expressed shock at being subjected to a law designed to counter terrorism, while simultaneously accusing the state government of orchestrating a systematic crackdown on dissent.
The platform further alleged that nearly 70 FIRs had been registered against it over the past two and a half years under various legal provisions, including those relating to public mischief, enmity, and obscenity, thereby suggesting a pattern of sustained legal pressure.
It also accused the government of hypocrisy, juxtaposing its actions with Rahul Gandhi’s public advocacy of constitutional freedoms and civil liberties.
The move has elicited widespread condemnation from civil liberties groups and media professionals, who view it as a troubling instance of legal overreach. Observers have argued that deploying an extraordinary statute such as the UAPA against a platform engaged in political commentary risks creating a chilling effect on free speech, particularly when the threshold for invoking such provisions remains opaque.