'No Mechanical Arrests': Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Police To Curb Unwarranted FIRs Over Social Media Posts

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against the administrator of an X (formerly Twitter) account, for allegedly promoting communal disharmony by sharing a news report about an incident of stalking in Puttur. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also censured the police for registering multiple FIRs on the same incident. The court has now issued a slew of guidelines to prevent the mechanical registration of crimes arising from social media posts.

“…. Since crime after crime is registered by the very Police Station on an incident of reporting of a particular act, it is shocking as to how for the asking, the crimes are registered by the jurisdictional police on the same incident without there being any ingredient of crime and without holding any preliminary inquiry… The material placed on record raises two interconnected concerns: the mechanical registration of successive crimes arising from the same incident or social media expression, and the indiscriminate exercise of police powers without adherence to statutory and constitutional safeguards.”, the court noted, by stating that the actions of the police were in contravention of apex court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil and Nalla Balu.

To prevent the mechanical registration of crimes, multiplicity of proceedings, as well as the arbitrary exercise of police powers, the Court issued the following guidelines to the jurisdictional police authorities:

1. Scrutiny of Ingredients: Police must examine if the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. Mere reproduction of penal provisions is not enough, the court underscored.
2. Successive Complaints: If complaints arise from the same incident or identical social media expression, police must check if a crime is already registered, the court has directed. A fresh crime should not be registered merely because the complainant is different.
3. Preliminary Inquiry: Police should consider conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS where permissible, without using it as a device to avoid registering a mandated cognizable offence, the single judge bench highlighted.
4. Specific Scrutiny under Section 353(2) BNS: Before invoking this section, police must ensure the expression satisfies specific ingredients, including requisite intent and its relationship to specific classes or communities. Mere criticism is not enough.
5. No Mechanical Arrest: Registration of a crime does not automatically result in arrest, the court clarified. Police must strictly comply with Section 35 of the BNSS and the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, it was said further.
6. Institutional Accountability: The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, must ensure these principles are brought to the notice of all jurisdictional police officers, the court concluded.

For context, Sandeep Kumar was the admin of the account 'Karnataka Portfolio'. In July 2026, a woman in Puttur was allegedly stalked, threatened with a knife, and followed by six youngsters in a SUV. This incident was allegedly captured on CCTV cameras, and subsequently reported by various media outlets. According to the prosecution, the admin reposted a news report on his X account with the caption 'Law and Order under Fire: Six held after Hindu woman alleges knife threat in Puttur'.

This became the subject matter of the crime when one of the accused youngsters preferred a complaint stating that the reposted message had false information aimed at creating communal tension. Accordingly, Puttur Town Police registered an FIR under Section 353(2) of BNS (statements conducing to public mischief).

According to the petitioner-social media admin, police had similarly registered a total of seven FIRs against various individuals and media over the same incident.

Advocate Girish Bharadwaj, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the admin was merely sharing information already available in the public domain. The court was told that when the accused-admin is neither the author nor the creator of the post, no liability could be attracted. Moreover, the reposted material did not refer to any identifiable group, and merely reported an incident of stalking, the petitioner said.

Similar FIRs lodged against various media outlets were due to the influence wielded by the youngster accused in the Puttur case, the counsel for the social media admin added.

HCGP Deepthi Alva for the state said that all procedural safeguards including issuance of notie under Section 35(3) of BNSS were duly followed in the matter. According to the state, the petitioner's statements resulted in social disharmony.

The court, while analysing the issue at hand, noted that the underlying incident was a serious one involving young men stalking a woman and threatening her.

“….If this should not be reported in the social media what else can be posted. It is not reported by the petitioner. The petitioner only tweets that “law and order under fire”. The petitioner has reiterated that agony or reposted the incident that is already reported with agony of anarchy..” the Court remarked.

The Court added further that that neither the complaint nor the tweet named any religious group to instil unrest in the community. The existence of mens rea and an intention to create enmity between two or more groups is a pre requisite for attracting the offenc under Section 353(2) of the BNS, the court added. For this, the court relied on precedents such as Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court, hence, found that the post was a simple reportage of an incident, and lacked the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.

Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.

Before parting, the Court has also directed the DG and IGP to ensure strict compliance with the guidelines laid down in the order, in accordance with the apex court precedents