Click the Play button to listen to article

The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, has issued two comprehensive circulars directing strict compliance with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the law declared by the Supreme Court on arrest and personal liberty, in compliance with directions issued by the High Court earlier.

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna had on August 29 directed the DGP to issue binding guidelines after the Whitefield Police Constable was found to have travelled to Udupi to take a man into custody over a Facebook post, allegedly serving the Section 35(3) notice only after he was already taken into custody.

The petition in question was filed by Hindu activist Mohan Gowda challenging the registration of an FIR and his arrest for social media posts celebrating the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra's show at Whitefield as a victory for Hindu Unity.It was alleged that a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was served upon him only after he had been brought to within a few yards of the Whitefield Police Station.

The circulars, issued on 19 September 2026 and in September 2026 respectively, was in the aftermath of the court describing the recent actions of the Whitefield Police Station as a 'blatant infraction' of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2025] and State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu [2026]..

When the matter was taken up yesterday, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty placed on record the circulars in question. The court opined that the circulars issued were comprehensive enough, and in line with the earlier directions of the court.

“…the acceptance of this circular as compliance with the directions of this Court is to be considered on the next date of hearing. Tag this petition along with [connected matters]. The presence of the officers today is dispensed with in future proceedings unless specific orders are passed…”, the court accordingly noted in the order.

About the infractions allegedly committed by the police, the court orally remarked about a previous case it was presiding over at Dharwad.

“… Yesterday I was hearing a habeas corpus matter at Dharwad. His brother is the accused; he is not. He was kept in custody in a hotel for 72 hours….No FIR was registered. All enquiry was done by the police. No notice was issued. No crime was registered. He is not an accused in this case…. How do you tolerate all this? It is not necessary for the Court to do this. You[police] yourself should do it. What I am saying is the police should not be policed at all. What state are we in? We are policing the police. I had to summon the SP. On the merits, whether they [petitioners in the current case] have a case or not, we will answer. But this is not the way”.

In the instant case, the court, while granting an interim stay on the crime registered for offences under Section 217 [giving false information] and 353(2) [statements causing public mischief, spreading rumours, or inciting communities]of BNS, 2023, had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and the officers concerned [who allegedly took the activist into custody from Udupi] to remain present in Court on August 29, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.

On August 29, the court noted that “…a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS cannot become a piece of paper ceremonially handed over to a citizen after his liberty has, in substance, already been curtailed”, the Court observed. The single judge bench further underscored that 'the procedure must precede the coercion; it cannot be manufactured to justify the coercion'. The police 'cannot be a law unto themselves' though they are an indispensable arm of the state, the court added.

Circulars On S.35 BNSS & Social Media Posts

Consequently, the first circular, as per the court order, addresses compliance with Section 35 BNSS. It notes that under Section 35(1)(b), the power to arrest is conferred in a qualified manner, and that where an offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years or up to seven years, the police officer must exercise the power judiciously.

Among the instructions issued to all police officers of the State are: i) all material relating to the decision to arrest or not to arrest including grounds of necessity, reasons recorded, the Section 35(3) notice, proof of service, compliance and any subsequent material shall form part of the case diary and investigation records, ii) SHOs and Investigating Officers shall remain personally responsible for compliance, iii) supervisory officers shall not treat violation of arrest safeguards as a minor procedural lapse, and iv)any wilful, deliberate or reckless violation of the law governing issuance of notice, arrest or curtailment of personal liberty shall expose the erring officer, irrespective of rank, to departmental proceedings.

The second circular deals specifically with the registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts. It, relying on judicial precedents, notes that police officers have been registering cases relating to social media posts mechanically without undertaking the preliminary enquiries stipulated by the Supreme Court

The circular adopts the eight guidelines framed in Nalla Balu about the locus standi of the complainant before registering an FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences, conducting a preliminary inquiry prior to registration of crime where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, a high threshold for speech-related offences requiring prima facie material disclosing incitement to violence, hatred or public disorder etc., and protection of political speech under Article 19(1)(a).

The circular also iterates that defamation is a non-cognizable offence for which the complainant must approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. The guidelines further require strict compliance with Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. The circular also advises obtaining prior legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor in sensitive cases involving political speech or other sensitive forms of expression, and closure of frivolous, vexatious or politically motivated complaints under Section 176(1) BNSS.

Previously, the court had flagged a separate incident wherein Whitefield Police Station arrested a witness to a Will even after issuing Section 35(3) BNSS. The court had then imposed exemplary costs of ₹3,00,000 on the Investigating Officer and superior officials for the said illegal arrest.

Case: Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka and Another

Case No: W.P. No. 25680/2026 (GM-RES)

Click Here To Read/Download Circular



Tags: