Karnataka High Court issues additional guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of power by police for registering FIRs based on social media posts

A file photo of the High Court of Karnataka

Taking serious note of registration of multiple first information reports (FIRs) mechanically based on social media post in the State, the High Court of Karnataka has issued additional guidelines to protect the public from indiscriminate and arbitrary exercise of police powers without adherence to statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The court also directed the State’s Director=General and Inspector=General of Police to ensure that the principles governing registration of crimes, protection of freedom of expression and safeguards against unnecessary arrest are brought to the notice of all jurisdictional police officers through appropriate administrative instructions.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the guidelines while quashing multiple FIRs for allegedly creating communal disharmony against Sandeep Kumar of Bengaluru for reposting a post that was already available on social media platform. The petitioner had reposted a post related to a CCTV footage of a group of young persons in a SUV chasing and threatening a woman in Puttur in Dakshina Kannada district this July.

These guidelines would be in addition and subject to the directions of the Supreme Court, which had affirmed the certain guidelines issued by the High Court of Telangana in Nalla Balu’s case in 2025 for registering FIR based on social media posts, clarified Justice Nagaprasanna.

Whenever a complaint is received alleging commission of an offence arising from a social media post, statement or expression, the court said the jurisdictional police should examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged.

When multiple complaints arise from the same incident and substantially identical social media expression, the court said that the jurisdictional police should ascertain whether a crime has already been registered in relation to it. Multiple complaints on the same incident should be dealt with in accordance with the principles governing successive FIRs and a fresh crime should not be registered merely because the complainant is different, unless the allegations disclose a legally distinct occurrence or an independently registrable offence, the court made it clear.

In cases where a preliminary inquiry is permissible under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the law declared by the apex court, the jurisdictional police should consider its necessity, and conduct it in strict conformity with the statutory conditions and prescribed timelines prior to registration of FIR, the court said, while clarifying that such inquiry should not become a device to avoid registration of a cognisable offence where registration is mandated by law.

Before invoking Section 353(2) (statements to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred based on religion, groups, etc) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the court said that the jurisdictional police should examine whether alleged statement, etc., satisfies the specific ingredients prescribed in the provision, including the requisite intent and its relationship to the classes or communities contemplated therein. Mere criticism or expression of disagreement shall not be mechanically brought within its ambit, the court said.

Making it clear that registration of a crime should not automatically result in arrest as it is not mandatory in law in certain offences, the court said that the jurisdictional police should strictly comply with Section 35 of the BNSS and the principles laid down by the apex court.