Court Rules Mere Political Criticism Without Intent to Incite Public Disorder Does Not Constitute Offence Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
In a significant judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Sri Amit Malviya, National Convener of the IT Cell of BJP, concerning his social media post on X (formerly Twitter) criticizing Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The petition was heard by Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who ruled that the post, despite its strong language and edited imagery, did not disclose any offence under Sections 192 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The FIR was lodged on May 20, 2025, by the State Vice President of the Youth Congress Legal Cell, Karnataka, alleging that the post contained false, malicious, and provocative content prejudicial to national integrity and harmony. The post accused Rahul Gandhi of "speaking the language of Pakistan" by questioning the Indian Armed Forces on losses during Operation Sindoor, while neglecting Pakistan's losses, and included an edited photo portraying Rahul Gandhi alongside Pakistan's Army Chief.
Justice Nagaprasanna, after hearing Sri M. Aruna Shyam, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, and the State Public Prosecutor, analyzed the complaint against the backdrop of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Court referenced authoritative Supreme Court judgments, including Imran Prathapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026), Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024), and Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021), which emphasize that for speech-related offences, the intention (mens rea) to promote enmity or incite violence or public disorder is essential.
The Court underscored that mere political criticism, even if strongly worded or provocative, cannot be criminalized unless it contains ingredients promoting enmity or inciting public disorder. The Court held that the post must be read in its entirety and context, not by isolating parts. It further noted that the reasonable person standard applies while judging the effect of such words, rather than the perspective of individuals with weak or oscillating minds.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioner's post was an expression of political dissent and criticism, which falls squarely within the ambit of free speech. It did not promote enmity between groups nor intended to cause public disorder. Consequently, the registration of FIR and continuation of investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court also applied the Supreme Court's guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which provide circumstances for quashing FIRs to prevent abuse of legal process. Since the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute any offence, the FIR was quashed to avoid miscarriage of justice.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to protecting democratic freedoms of speech and dissent while balancing reasonable restrictions. It sends a strong message that political criticism, essential in a vibrant democracy, cannot be stifled through criminal proceedings unless it crosses the threshold of inciting hatred or violence.
Bottom Line:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 192 and 353 - Quashing of FIR - Post on X criticising Leader of Opposition and comparing his stand with that of Pakistan - Mere political criticism, however strongly worded, without ingredients of promoting enmity between groups or intention to cause public disorder, does not constitute offence - Continuation of investigation in such case amounts to abuse of process of law.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 192, 196, 353; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 19(1)(a)
Sri Amith Malviya v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000496
