Mechanical Registration Of Crimes Over Social Media Posts Must Be Prevented: Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To Police
The Court quashed Section 353(2) BNS FIR against administrator of “Karnataka Portfolio” X account over repost of Puttur incident; seven crimes were registered on same incident.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that crimes must not be registered mechanically on the basis of social media posts, and has issued guidelines to the police to prevent multiplicity of proceedings arising from the same incident and arbitrary use of police powers. It directed that a fresh crime shall not be registered merely because the complainant is different, unless the allegations disclose a legally distinct occurrence or an independently registrable offence.
The Court quashed the FIR under Section 353(2) of the BNS against the administrator of the “Karnataka Portfolio” X account, who had reposted a report about an alleged threat to a woman in Puttur. Seven crimes, were registered at the same station on the same incident.
A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “To prevent the mechanical registration of crimes, multiplicity of proceedings arising from the same incident and arbitrary exercise of police powers, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following guidelines to the jurisdictional police authorities, subject always to the provisions of the BNSS and the law declared by the Apex Court…”.
The Bench, thus, directed:
(i) Scrutiny of ingredients of the offence: Police must examine whether a complaint about a social media post, taken at face value, actually discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, rather than mechanically reproducing the language of a penal provision.
(ii) Successive complaints concerning the same incident: When complaints arise from the same incident or identical expressions, police must verify if a crime is already registered. Multiple FIRs for the same occurrence are barred unless a legally distinct occurrence or independent offence is disclosed.
(iii) Preliminary inquiry wherever permissible: Where allowed under Section 173(3) of the BNSS and Supreme Court rulings, police must conduct a preliminary inquiry in strict compliance with statutory conditions and timelines, without using it as a device to avoid registering mandatory cognizable offences.
(iv) Specific scrutiny under Section 353(2) of the BNS: Before invoking Section 353(2) of the BNS, authorities must verify whether the expression satisfies specific statutory ingredients, including requisite intent and a direct link to targeted classes or communities. Mere criticism cannot be mechanically brought under its ambit.
(v) No mechanical arrest: Registering a crime does not automatically warrant arrest. Police must strictly comply with Section 35 of the BNSS and established precedents (Satender Kumar Antil, Joginder Kumar, Arnesh Kumar). If statutory arrest conditions are unmet, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS must be followed.
(vi) Institutional accountability: The Director General and Inspector General of Police, State of Karnataka, must ensure that principles governing crime registration, freedom of expression, and arrest safeguards are communicated to all jurisdictional officers via administrative instructions.
Advocate Girish Bharadwaj appeared for the petitioner and Deepthi Alva, HCGP appeared for the respondent.
On July 08, 2026, six youths were taken into custody after a woman alleged that they threatened her with a knife and followed her in a Thar SUV at Purusharakatte, Puttur taluk. The petitioner’s account shared a post titled “Law and Order under Fire”.
On July 09, a 21-year-old resident complained that the post targeted him and his friends and was aimed at creating communal tension. The police registered the crime and issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.
The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS, where his counsel argued that he was not the author, only a re-publisher, and that the post named no identifiable groups. The State argued that procedure had been followed and the investigation should continue. The complainant was served but unrepresented.
The Court noted that the complaint and post named no religious group, and reproduced Supreme Court judgments in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo, Patricia Mukhim, Javed Ahmad Hajam, Shiv Prasad Semwal and Imran Pratapgadhi. These require intent, at least two groups or communities, and judgment by the standard of reasonable, strong-minded people. The Court called it shocking that crime after crime was registered without ingredients or a preliminary inquiry. It drew on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI on arrest and the Telangana High Court’s Nalla Balu guidelines, which the Supreme Court left undisturbed.
Cause Title: Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 13010 of 2026.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Girish Bharadwaj.
Respondent: Deepthi Alva, HCGP.