Agartala, February 25, 2026: The High Court of Tripura has refused to direct the registration of an FIR on a complaint filed by Ranjit Debbarma, MLA from Ramchandraghat, against a section of electronic media, holding that no prima facie cognizable offence was made out at this stage under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud on February 23, 2026, dismissing the writ petition that challenged the decision of West Agartala Police Station to close the complaint as “No Cognizable Offence”.

The case stemmed from a written complaint lodged by the MLA on October 26, 2025, alleging that an electronic media outlet, Headlines Tripura National, along with its editor Pranab Sarkar, had broadcast news claiming that the legislator possessed a fake Bangladeshi voter ID card and fabricated birth certificate.

Debbarma contended that the broadcast was deliberate, malicious, and aimed at destroying his personal image and political career. He further alleged that forged Bangladeshi documents were circulated without verification and claimed that the act amounted to offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Despite lodging the complaint, the Officer-in-Charge of West Agartala Police Station conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of BNSS and, through a reasoned order dated November 8, 2025, declined to register an FIR.

After examining the police records, statutory provisions, and Supreme Court precedents, the High Court upheld the police decision. The court noted that: Defamation, as alleged, is a non-cognizable offence, requiring a private complaint before a magistrate; No material was produced to show that the media personnel themselves prepared, forged, or used fake documents so as to attract forgery provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; The essential ingredients of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not disclosed, as the broadcasts did not target the petitioner on the ground of his tribal identity; and No prima facie offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 was established.

The court also elaborately discussed the legal framework under the BNSS, 2023, clarifying that Section 173(3) statutorily permits preliminary enquiry in cases where offences carry punishment between three and seven years.

The High Court observed that the petitioner had statutory remedies available under Section 173(4) of BNSS by approaching the Superintendent of Police and thereafter the Magistrate with a properly supported affidavit, which had not been exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Holding that no illegality or perversity was found in the police action, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.

The ruling assumes significance as it provides detailed judicial clarity on the new BNSS framework, particularly on the scope of preliminary enquiry and limits of police power in media-related complaints. It also reiterates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist.