Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru
Bengaluru, Oct 24: The Karnataka high court has issued a set of guidelines directing police to prevent the mechanical registration of criminal cases arising from social media posts, multiple proceedings over the same content and the arbitrary exercise of police powers.
Justice M Nagaprasanna also directed the director general and inspector general of police to ensure that the principles governing the registration of criminal cases, protection of freedom of expression and safeguards against unnecessary arrests are brought to the notice of all jurisdictional police officers through appropriate administrative instructions.
The guidelines supplement those issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil and the Telangana high court in Nalla Balu.
The high court issued the directions while allowing a petition filed by Bengaluru resident Sandeep Kumar, who challenged criminal cases registered against him. According to the petition, seven cases had been registered over the same social media post.
Mohammad Shahanawaz had filed a complaint against the petitioner over a social media post concerning the alleged stalking and following of a woman by a group of youths in Puttur town, Dakshina Kannada district. The complaint was lodged at Puttur town police station.
Observing that guidelines issued by police authorities must remain subject to the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the law declared by the Supreme Court, the high court directed police to examine whether a complaint alleging an offence arising from a social media post, statement or expression discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, even when its allegations are taken at face value.
The court further directed jurisdictional police to ascertain whether a criminal case had already been registered in connection with the same social media post. If a case already exists, a fresh case must not be registered merely because the subsequent complaint has been filed by a different person.
In cases where a preliminary inquiry is permissible under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, police must consider whether such an inquiry is necessary and ensure that it is conducted in strict compliance with the statutory conditions, requisite permissions and prescribed timelines.
The court, however, clarified that a preliminary inquiry must not become a means of avoiding the registration of a cognisable offence where the law mandates registration.
Emphasising the need to protect freedom of expression, the high court observed that mere criticism or the expression of disagreement must not be mechanically brought within the ambit of Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Police must examine whether the impugned statement, rumour, report or expression satisfies the specific ingredients prescribed under the provision.
The court also cautioned that registration of a criminal case does not automatically warrant an arrest. Police must follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the BNSS before making an arrest.
The state police chief was directed to ensure strict compliance with the guidelines, reinforcing the need for lawful registration of cases, protection of free expression and safeguards against unnecessary arrests.