Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court on August 28[ Friday] came down heavily on the Whitefield Police for what it termed as a recurring pattern of illegal arrests by the Station, by allegedly misusing the provision under Section 35(3) BNSS.

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition 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, noted as below:

“…the police constable attached to Whitefield Police Station is said to have travelled to Udupi to take the petitioner into custody and bring him in to the station and make him sit in there, all for offences under 353(2) of BNS and 217. The Section 35(3) BNSS notice is said to have handed over to the petitioner a little away from Whitefield Police Station, after securing him, taking him into custody and bringing him there. The Section 35(3 ) BNSS notice issued is indicative of the fact that the petitioner should appear before the police in the next 3 days but he is already in the custody of police. A notice indicating later date of appearance appears to have been used to take the petitioner into custody 3 days prior to the fixed date itself…. Whitefield police station appears to have been violating the law time and again as this court has repeatedly seen its violations of law. This has been the modus operandi of policemen who man the Whitefield police station as this court is coming across these cases time and again.”, the court noted in the order today.

Yesterday, the court had flagged Whitefield Police Station arresting a witness to a Will even after issuing Section 35(3) BNSS notice in a different matter and had imposed exemplary costs of ₹3,00,000 on the Investigating Officer and superior officials for the said illegal arrest.

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, has 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.

“…The DCP, ACP, and the police sub inspector who has indulged in this act should be present before the court at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow. In the event the DCP and ACP is not present, this court would be constrained to summon the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru to set the house in order…”, the court underscored.

For context, the petitioner-Mohan Gowda-is the state organiser of 'Hindu Rastra Samanvaya Samithi'. According to the petitioner, on August 1, he, along with other organization members, submitted a representation to the Whitefield Police Station requesting the cancellation of a comedy show scheduled by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra on August 3, 2026, citing concerns about communal harmony.

Following the representation, the comedian himself announced on X (formerly Twitter) that his show had been shifted to Koramangala, as reported by newspapers as well.

Following this, the petitioner is stated to have posted on social media that the show's cancellation was 'A Victory for Hindu Unity'.

The aforesaid social media post forms the foundation of the FIR registered on August 4 at 2.30 pm, Adv. Girish Bharadwaj, appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court. The petitioner further contended that the FIR was registered in a highly irregular manner, such as the complaint being lodged a day after the registration of FIR on a suo motu basis.

On August 4 the police allegedly issued a notice under Section 173(2) of the BNSS through WhatsApp, informing the petitioner that the police has initiated a preliminary enquiry. The petitioner, however, was at Udupi at the relevant time.

On August 6 it is said by the petitioner that the police officials picked him up from Udupi and brought him back to Whitefield Police Station after a long journey. The petitioner was then allegedly made to sit at the police station and was released only at 2:15 p.m. on August 7, 2026, after advocates intervened.

Bharadwaj argued that he had merely submitted a representation to the police. The cancellation and relocation of the show were matters of public record, added the counsel.

In the petition, the grounds for quashing the FIR included the allegation that he was taken into custody from Udupi despite a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS having been issued later, without giving him any opportunity to comply. Moreover, expression of happiness over a public development is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea adds.

When the counsel submitted before the court that the police had dragged the petitioner from Udupi 'as if he has done some heinous crime', the court orally observed:

“…. Whitefield Police Station, for these acts, they work 24 hours”.

Case Title: Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: 25680/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: