Telangana CM Threatens to ‘Strip and Parade’ Social Media Trollers

Undermines Free Speech, Journalism and Rule of Law

March 17, 2025

In an assembly speech, Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy expressed his outrage over the use of abusive language directed at his family on social media, particularly against the women in his household. His anger is understandable, but not the threat he issued to "strip" and "parade" offenders on the streets, nor his proposal to amend laws governing media and social media use.

He criticised the lack of accountability in online journalism and called for clear criteria to define and accredit journalists, as reported by The News Minute. Reddy suggested that those not officially recognised as journalists should be treated as criminals.

He accused the opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) of orchestrating trolling campaigns and condemned their defence of arrested journalists who had shared content critical of him and his family. While claiming his actions would comply with the law, he issued severe warnings to abusive trolls, stating that anonymity would not protect them, and his government would act against them.

Under Indian law, neither public officials nor private individuals possess any legal authority to personally administer punishment or humiliation, regardless of provocation. Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 499 and 500 handle defamation through legal proceedings, and Sections 503 and 506 cover criminal intimidation; none of these provisions grant authority for physical humiliation or extrajudicial punishments. Moreover, such threats themselves could constitute criminal intimidation under IPC Section 506, as explicitly threatening violence or humiliation to anyone is illegal, irrespective of the alleged offence.

Further, Revanth Reddy’s outraged reaction seems disproportionate given the reality faced by ordinary citizens, who routinely experience abusive language, trolling or harassment on social media. Thousands of citizens daily face online abuse without the possibility or privilege of personal intervention from state authorities. The Chief Minister’s reaction thus appears exaggerated and out of step with the broader social experience, suggesting a belief that politicians or public figures deserve exceptional protections beyond ordinary citizens. His reaction should have been measured and focused on proposing policies to address this issue comprehensively, rather than making it personal. 

Furthermore, Revanth Reddy’s proposal to segregate journalists into recognised and unrecognised categories fundamentally threatens freedom of speech and undermines press freedom.  

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen, irrespective of their affiliation, credentials, or accreditation. Creating distinctions between journalists based on arbitrary recognition criteria undermines democratic discourse, potentially silencing critical voices that do not align with official preferences or formal recognition processes. Such a move could institutionalise censorship by restricting protections to a selective group, effectively criminalising independent journalism or citizen reporting. This directly conflicts with established constitutional principles and democratic ideals, risking grave violations of fundamental rights. 

Moreover, Revanth Reddy's speech reflects a troubling normalisation of displays of power and threats of violence by those holding political authority. When a leader openly threatens physical punishment, it signals that violent rhetoric and abuse of authority are acceptable responses to criticism or provocation. Such language erodes respect for the rule of law—a principle that calls for impartial justice, ensuring equal protection to ordinary people from abuses by powerful individuals. The rule of law exists precisely to protect vulnerable citizens from arbitrary use of force or threats by those in positions of authority. Statements like those of the Chief Minister undermine public confidence in legal fairness and equality, creating a dangerous precedent that could embolden further abuses of power.