All criticism not a threat: Karnataka HC issues guidelines on cases over social media posts

The court said criticism and protest are protected forms of expression and that speech should be judged by reasonable, strong-minded people.

The Karnataka High Court directed police to avoid mechanically registering cases over social media posts and ensure that an FIR does not automatically lead to an arrest, saying that the “effect of words must be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded and courageous people, and not those who perceive every criticism as a threat.”

In an order dated October 16, Justice M Nagaprasanna issued guidelines to prevent multiple cases over the same incident and the arbitrary exercise of police powers.

The court made the observations while quashing a criminal case against one Sandeep Kumar, who was booked for allegedly promoting enmity after reposting on X a news report about six young men allegedly threatening a woman with a knife.

Also Read | Can social media bans protect young people’s mental health? Research suggests bans aren’t the answer

“Whenever a complaint is received alleging commission of an offence arising from a social media post, statement or expression, the jurisdictional police shall examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. Mere reproduction of the language of a penal provision shall not substitute for factual allegations disclosing its ingredients,” the HC said.

“It is not a stray incident or a generated incident that the petitioner re-posts. It was a serious incident of six young men forming a group, following or stalking a woman in their Thar SUV and threatening her time and again. If this should not be reported in the social media, what else can be posted,” the court asked. Kumar had also posted that “law and order under fire”, the court noted.

The guidelines direct police to examine whether a complaint discloses the essential ingredients of an offence before registering a FIR. They must also check whether a case has already been registered over the same incident or a substantially identical post.

Also Read | 37 social media accounts under scanner for SIR protest misinformation

The court, in its order, said police must conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS wherever legally permissible. They must also scrutinise the specific ingredients and intent required to invoke provisions such as Section 353(2) of the BNS, which penalises circulating false information or rumours with the intent to promote enmity between communities. The judge also said that the Supreme Court had recognised in its previous judgements that criticism and protest fall within the protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The HC directed Karnataka’s director general and inspector general of police to circulate the guidelines and ensure compliance.

Ayesha Arvind is a Senior Assistant Editor specialising in legal and judicial reportage. She covers High Courts and tribunals across southern India, and believes that important legal developments do not only come from New Delhi. Her work focuses on bringing significant decisions and developments from the region to a wider audience and explaining what they mean beyond the courtroom. She tries to make legal material accessible by translating legal jargon into clear, readable prose and putting pleas, lawsuits, judgments and legal developments in context. She also looks at their political realities and practical consequences for people. Ayesha is committed to the standards of integrity journalism requires. She places a premium on accuracy and fairness, and believes that journalism's powerful voice must be tempered by humility and a sense of proportion. Over almost two decades in journalism, she has covered law and order, civil law, crime and other areas of legal affairs. Her work includes breaking news, legal affairs stories, online analysis and commentary. Ayesha is deeply interested in the law, court judgments and the Constitution because they shape everyday life. She believes every citizen should have a basic understanding of them. What she enjoys most about covering courts is that every story brings something new to learn.Read More