Karnataka High Court Rebukes Police over Mechanical FIRs and Arbitrary Arrests for Social Media Posts
The Karnataka High Court has strongly criticized the state police for allegedly registering criminal cases mechanically over social media posts. The court raised serious concerns regarding the arbitrary use of criminal law, repeated First Information Reports (FIRs), and the potential threat such police actions pose to freedom of expression.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while quashing a criminal case registered by the Puttur Town police station against Bengaluru resident Sandeep Kumar. The single judge directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG&IGP) to issue administrative instructions across Karnataka to prevent automatic arrests and indiscriminate registration of cases stemming from online expressions.
Quashing of Case Over Social Media Repost
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, submitted that he had merely reposted information regarding an incident in which six men allegedly stalked a woman traveling in a jeep. The court was informed that neither the complaint nor the social media post named any religious group or contained material suggesting an attempt to promote communal disharmony.
Despite the absence of such allegations, police registered a case under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relates to statements conducing to public mischief. The court expressed dismay over the registration of the case without police establishing the essential ingredients of the offence or conducting a preliminary inquiry where required.
The High Court noted that police registered around seven cases at the same station regarding the same underlying incident. Describing the registration of cases over the reporting of an incident as shocking, the court observed that police discretion must not become a tool for intimidating individuals who share, repost, or comment on matters of public interest.
Strict Guidelines for Scrutinizing Complaints
The court emphasized that when a complaint alleges an offence arising from a social media post or expression, jurisdictional police must evaluate whether the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, even if accepted at face value. Simply reproducing statutory penal language in a complaint cannot replace specific factual allegations establishing wrongdoing.
Addressing the practice of registering multiple FIRs, the court questioned why fresh cases were opened over the same incident merely because different complainants approached the police. It directed officers to verify whether a case had already been registered for the same transaction or a substantially identical occurrence, stating that a fresh case should not be registered unless allegations disclose a legally distinct occurrence or an independently registrable offence.
Mandatory Compliance with Arrest Safeguards
Regarding arrest procedures, Justice Nagaprasanna clarified that registering a crime does not automatically justify an arrest. Police must comply with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and adhere to principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Arnesh Kumar, Joginder Kumar, and Satender Kumar judgments.
Where statutory conditions for an arrest are not met, police officers are required to strictly follow the notice procedure under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The High Court's directions to the state police chief aim to ensure these legal safeguards are properly communicated to officers at the jurisdictional police station level.
