Agartala, October 13, 2026: The Tripura High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by former Chief Minister and senior CPI(M) leader Manik Sarkar seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him over an alleged provocative statement made during a political programme in Agartala on August 10. The court directed Sarkar to refrain from making provocative or hate speeches in the future and advised him to motivate people towards progress, peace, harmony and brotherhood.
The judgment was pronounced on October 13 by a division bench of Justice Dr T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit, following a hearing held on October 7. The petition sought the quashing of West Agartala Police Station Case No. 2026 WAG 109, registered on August 16 under Sections 192, 353(1)(b) and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The case relates to an FIR registered at West Agartala Police Station on August 16, 2026, under Sections 192, 353(1)(b) and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following a complaint lodged by Prabir Roy of Abhoynagar. The complainant alleged that Sarkar’s remarks during a political programme could incite violence, disturb public order and encourage unlawful activities.
According to the complaint, Sarkar used the Bengali expression “Jongi Andoloner Pothe Jete Desh-Rajya” which translates to English “the Country and the State will have to take the path of militant/aggressive movement” while referring to the movement against the State and Central governments. The complainant interpreted the statement as suggesting that the country and the state would have to take the path of a militant or aggressive movement.
Sarkar, who served as Tripura’s Chief Minister from March 1998 to March 2018, challenged the FIR, arguing that his statement had been misinterpreted and taken out of context. His counsel maintained that the speech concerned a democratic agitation over an 11-point charter of demands raised by workers, farmers, students, youth and other sections of society.
The defense argued that Sarkar had called for a broader and more vigorous movement if the governments failed to address public grievances, but had also urged protesters to cooperate peacefully with the police during their arrest and detention. It contended that the FIR was politically motivated and that the alleged statement did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the speech had to be examined in the context of the circumstances in which it was delivered. According to the State’s submissions, a gathering of around 5,000 people had marched towards the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s office in Sadar, breached two successive security barricades and been stopped at a third barricade before an Executive Magistrate formally declared the assembly under arrest.
The State clarified that the earlier breach of barricades had occurred before Sarkar’s speech and was not attributed to his subsequent remarks. However, it maintained that the prevailing law-and-order situation and the impact of the speech on the gathering required investigation.
The court observed that Sarkar’s words, given his stature as a senior political leader and former Chief Minister, carried considerable weight among his followers and the public. It held that the allegations raised questions concerning the interpretation, context and possible impact of the statement that could not be conclusively determined at the initial stage of the proceedings.
The Bench also noted that Section 192 of the BNS covers certain forms of wanton provocation intended or likely to cause rioting, even where a riot does not ultimately occur. It observed that determining whether the alleged statement met the statutory requirements would depend on the evidence collected during the investigation.
The court emphasised that freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally protected but is not absolute and remains subject to lawful restrictions in the interest of public order. It relied on Supreme Court judgments concerning the limited circumstances in which courts should interfere with criminal investigations and quash FIRs at an early stage.
Dismissing Sarkar’s plea, the High Court held that a discreet investigation was necessary. It observed that the former Chief Minister could approach the court below with an appropriate bail application, which would be considered on its merits and subject to conditions.
The order does not determine Sarkar’s guilt; the allegations remain subject to investigation. The High Court directed him to avoid provocative or hate speeches and instead encourage the people of Tripura to work towards prosperity, peace, harmony and brotherhood.