Court rules that mere offensive statements without active incitement do not attract penal provisions under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; emphasizes importance of preliminary enquiry in speech-related offences
In a significant judgment delivered on October 28, 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Jyothi R under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The FIR had accused her of making objectionable remarks targeting the Muslim community during a period of communal tension in Maddur Town, Mandya district, Karnataka. The court held that mere offensive or insulting statements, without active incitement to promote enmity or hatred between communities, do not constitute an offence under the said provisions.
The petitioner, described as a social media influencer, was alleged to have made provocative statements on various TV channels and online platforms. The complaint was filed following communal disturbances, including a stone-pelting incident during the Ganesh Visarjana procession, a subsequent protest, and a town-wide bandh. The police had registered the FIR on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Police Inspector.
The petitioner challenged the FIR, contending that the allegations did not disclose the essential elements of the offences under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 BNS. She also argued that a mandatory preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was not conducted before registration of the FIR, thereby vitiating the complaint.
The court extensively analyzed the legal provisions and relevant Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark judgment in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026), which clarified the procedural safeguards required in cases involving speech-related offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The court emphasized that such offences require a preliminary enquiry, with prior permission from a senior police officer, to determine whether a prima facie case exists before proceeding with investigation or registration of FIR.
On the merits, the court held that the alleged statements, though offensive and insulting, were political taunts directed at a public figure's support for the Muslim community and did not actively incite hatred or violence. The statements did not insult the religion or religious beliefs of the Muslim community with the deliberate and malicious intention required under Section 299 BNS. Moreover, the complaint failed to demonstrate involvement of two distinct groups or communities, which is a necessary ingredient for an offence under Section 196(1)(a).
The court also underscored the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It reiterated that the penal provisions restricting speech must be interpreted narrowly and applied only when the essential elements of the offences are satisfied. Mere offensiveness or hurt feelings cannot justify criminal prosecution.
Rejecting the State's contention that the prevailing communal tension justified continuation of the proceedings, the court stated that the absence of facts showing a real likelihood of disturbance of public tranquillity or active incitement to hostility between communities rendered the FIR legally unsustainable.
The court clarified that while the existence of a recorded video of the alleged statement does not dispense with the need for preliminary enquiry, it does provide material for investigation. However, the legal sufficiency and attribution of the words must be examined with due regard to the constitutional right to free expression.
Accordingly, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings against Jyothi R. The judgment highlights the judiciary's role in balancing the protection of constitutional freedoms with the maintenance of public order and communal harmony.
This ruling serves as an important precedent reinforcing that criminal law should not be used as a tool to stifle free speech, especially political expression, unless the strict statutory conditions of promoting enmity or deliberate insult to religion are clearly met. It also affirms the procedural safeguard of preliminary enquiry in speech-related offences to prevent mechanical or vexatious registration of FIRs.
Bottom Line:
Freedom of speech and expression - FIR under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 quashed - Mere offensive or insulting statement referring to a community, without active incitement, promotion of enmity between different groups, or insult to religion or religious beliefs with deliberate and malicious intention, does not attract Sections 196(1)(a) or 299 BNS - In speech-related offences falling within Section 173(3) BNSS, preliminary enquiry should ordinarily be considered, though absence of such enquiry by itself does not automatically vitiate FIR.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 196(1)(a), Section 299; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 173(3), Section 528
Jyothi R v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3009880
