Social Media Must Regulate Intimidating Posts: Karnataka High Court While Denying Bail To 4 Over 'Obscene Posts' Against Darshan's Wife
The Karnataka High Court last month denied bail to four persons who have been booked for making obscene posts on social media against actor Darshan's wife Vijaylakshmi Darshan.
Justice S Rachaiah dismissed the bail petitions in four separate orders and noted:
"No doubt, freedom of speech of expressions are guaranteed to its citizens under the Constitution of India. However, every such right has its reasonable restrictions. Exceeding such restrictions or invading the personal liberty of another person, certainly would be an offence and it would be dealt with in accordance with law.
It is needless to state that the Social Media as its responsibility to maintain decorum and also to instill the confidence in the minds of the citizens of this Country. The persons who are making comments on any issues have to maintain public peace and order. Making a baseless, false, frivolous and intimidating messages are required to be regulated by the Company itself, if not, Courts are required to secure the confidence of the citizens of this Country by way of interfering with such comments on the social media which violates the fundamental rights of any citizens of this Country".
The court observed that it cannot be a "mute spectator" and whenever interference is required, Courts without hesitation, will step into safeguarding the rights and interests of individuals or the public, guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
With respect to one of the accused Nithin GB the court observed that the petitioner had used "social media as a tool for harassment and intimidation" by deploying filthy and abusive language, which is unpardonable. It said that while social media is designed to facilitate communication and allow individuals to express their ideas and share views that contribute favorably to the development of the nation; however, "some miscreants misuse the liberty of speech and expression conferred under the Constitution by exceeding their legitimate limits" acting beyond the acceptable norms of society.
"The self-esteem and dignity of a woman must be protected by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts. Once confidence is instilled in the minds of women that the Courts stand ready to protect their fundamental rights and interests, they can live in society peacefully, without fear or hesitation" the court underscored.
With respect to this petitioner the court said that the derogatory words used by the petitioner on his Instagram account against the complainant must be dealt with strictly.
"To send a strong message to deter such evil minds and regulate such menace in society, it is appropriate to reject the bail application," the court said rejecting Nithin GB's bail plea.
The petitioners argued that allegations made against the petitioner is that he has posted a comment on one existing social media post. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has uploaded any post, created any content or disseminated any material. It was further submitted that to attract the ingredients of Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, it requires a publication or a transmission of obscene material by the accused person.
The act of posting a comment on the existing post without uploading or disseminating any obscene material does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the said provision, it was argued.
It was alleged that the complainant had participated in a programme held at Davangere on 21.12.2025 and made certain statements in the said event. However, her statement has been misinterpreted and it is alleged that derogatory comments were allegedly posted on social media platforms by some unknown persons. On going through the said comments, the complainant had lodged a complaint before the Police.
Case title: NINGARAJ GULAPPA v/s STATE, PRASHANTH KAREEPA TALAVAR v/s STATE, NITHIN G.B. v/s STATE, CHANDRASHEKAR B v/s STATE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1857 OF 2026 and batch