Court holds mere reposting without intent to incite enmity does not attract Section 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; directs police to exercise restraint and follow safeguards in registering FIRs and making arrests.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed an FIR registered against Sandeep Kumar under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case stemmed from the petitioner's act of reposting a social media news item reporting an incident involving six youths allegedly threatening a woman with a knife in Puttur, Dakshina Kannada district.
The petitioner had shared a post describing the incident accompanied by the comment "law and order under fire." The complainant alleged that the repost was aimed at creating communal tension and disturbing social harmony. Notably, the FIR was one among seven separate crimes registered by the same police station based on the same incident and social media expression.
Justice Nagaprasanna scrutinized the essential ingredients of Section 353(2) of the BNS, which penalizes the making, publishing, or circulation of any statement containing false information or alarming news with intent to promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste, or community groups. The Court observed that the petitioner's post did not name or target any specific group or community, nor was there any material to show the requisite mens rea (intent) to incite disharmony.
Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court, including Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reaffirmed that mere criticism of law and order situations or expression of anguish does not constitute an offense under Section 353(2). The Court emphasized that freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, protects such expression unless it crosses the threshold of inciting public disorder or hatred.
The Court was also critical of the police registering multiple FIRs on the same incident without adequate scrutiny or preliminary inquiry, describing such mechanical invocation of criminal law against social media expressions as deplorable. It cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and the Telangana High Court's judgment in Nalla Balu v. State of Telangana, which laid down operational guidelines for police and magistrates in handling social media speech-related offenses.
To address the issue, the Karnataka High Court issued comprehensive guidelines to jurisdictional police authorities, mandating:
1. Careful examination of the essential ingredients of the alleged offense before registering an FIR based on social media posts.
2. Avoidance of registering multiple FIRs for the same incident or substantially identical expression unless new legally distinct facts emerge.
3. Conducting preliminary inquiries where permissible and necessary before registration of cognizable offenses.
4. Specific scrutiny before invoking Section 353(2), ensuring that the statement contains the requisite intent and references to protected groups.
5. Strict compliance with Section 35 of the BNS regarding arrest procedures, discouraging mechanical arrests, and mandating recording of reasons for arrest or non-arrest.
6. The Director-General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, to circulate instructions to all police officers ensuring adherence to these principles and protection of free expression.
Consequently, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 88 of 2026 registered at Puttur Police Station. The Court's directions aim to safeguard constitutional freedoms while ensuring that criminal law is not misused to stifle legitimate dissent or expression on social media platforms.
This judgment reinforces the delicate balance between maintaining public order and protecting fundamental rights in the digital age, emphasizing judicial oversight and police accountability in handling speech-related offenses.
Bottom Line:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 353(2) - Re-posting or sharing a social media/news post about an incident, without reference to any religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste or community group and without intention to promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups, does not attract Section 353(2) - Mere criticism of law and order situation or expression of anguish is protected speech - Mechanical registration of multiple FIRs on same incident and routine invocation of criminal law against social media expression deprecated - FIR quashed and guidelines issued regarding scrutiny of ingredients, successive complaints, preliminary inquiry and no mechanical arrest.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 353(2), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 35(1)(b), 35(3), 35(5), 35(6), Constitution of India Article 19(1)(a), Article 21
Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001698
