Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed police across the state to follow a five-point protocol while handling complaints over social media posts, clarifying that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) does not automatically justify an arrest.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the directions while hearing a case involving the social media account Karnataka Portfolio. The court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to circulate the guidelines to all police officers through an official circular to ensure uniform implementation across Karnataka.
The directions seek to ensure that complaints involving online expression are examined on their merits before criminal proceedings are initiated and that the legal requirements for an alleged offence are established before coercive action is taken.
Case arose from a social media post about Puttur incident
The proceedings stemmed from a complaint against the administrator of Karnataka Portfolio after the account reposted a report about an incident at Purusharakatte in Puttur taluk of Dakshina Kannada district.
The report concerned six youths who were reportedly taken into custody over allegations that they had threatened and followed a woman travelling to work.
The account administrator was booked under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complainants alleged that the account was circulating false information and promoting communal hostility.
However, the High Court found that the allegations were not supported by evidence and that malicious intent had not been established. It subsequently quashed the FIR.
The court then laid down safeguards for police handling of complaints involving social media posts, stressing the need to distinguish between content that may constitute a criminal offence and expression that does not meet the legal threshold for prosecution.
Five safeguards for police across Karnataka
The High Court outlined five key requirements for police officers dealing with complaints over online posts.
1. Verify whether the complaint establishes an offence
Police must examine the allegations to determine whether the conduct complained of satisfies the essential ingredients of the relevant offence.
Merely citing a provision of criminal law is not sufficient to justify the registration of a case or further criminal action. The complaint must be assessed against the requirements of the law under which action is proposed.
2. Avoid multiple FIRs over the same incident
The court directed police to examine whether an earlier FIR already covers the same incident before registering another case based on a fresh complaint.
Multiple complainants approaching the police over the same occurrence should not automatically result in separate FIRs. Authorities must assess the relationship between the complaints and the existing case before proceeding.
3. Follow preliminary inquiry requirements where applicable
The court referred to Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which provides for a preliminary inquiry in specified circumstances.
Where the provision applies, police must follow the prescribed legal procedure before taking further action. The direction reinforces the requirement to comply with statutory safeguards rather than initiate proceedings without the necessary examination.
4. Do not prosecute criticism merely because it appears on social media
The High Court emphasised that criticism or commentary on social media should not, by itself, attract prosecution under Section 353(2) of the BNS.
Police must consider the actual content of a post, its context and the intention alleged in the complaint before deciding whether the provision applies.
The direction highlights the need to ensure that criminal law is not invoked solely because a post contains criticism or commentary, while preserving the ability to act when the legal ingredients of an offence are established.
5. Consider notice instead of arrest when arrest is unnecessary
The court reiterated that arrest should not be treated as an automatic consequence of registering an FIR.
Where arrest is not required, police should consider issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and questioning the person concerned in accordance with the law.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arnesh Kumar, which underscored the need to follow legal safeguards governing arrest rather than treating it as routine in every criminal case.
Supreme Court judgments cited
While framing the safeguards, the High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil and the Telangana High Court’s decision in the Balu case.
These judicial precedents formed part of the legal context for the directions on police procedure and the use of coercive measures during criminal investigations.
By directing the DGP to circulate the five-point protocol statewide, the High Court has sought to promote consistency in the handling of complaints over online content.
The guidelines emphasise that police must establish the legal basis for criminal action, avoid unnecessary duplication of cases and assess whether arrest is necessary in each instance. They also reinforce the importance of applying criminal law carefully in cases involving social media expression.