Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over X Repost, Sets Police Guidelines

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR against the administrator of the X account “Karnataka Portfolio” for reposting a news report on a stalking incident in Puttur, and has told the state’s police how to handle repeat cases over the same social media content. Justice M Nagaprasanna, in Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka, held that the post was a plain report of an incident, and LiveLaw reported the order on 23 October.

Seven FIRs on One Incident

In July 2026 a woman in Puttur was allegedly stalked and threatened with a knife by six youths in an SUV. Media outlets carried the story, and the account’s administrator reposted a news report with a caption criticising law and order. One of the youths named in the incident complained that the post spread false information and created communal tension, and Puttur Town Police registered an FIR under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner told the court police had registered seven FIRs over the same incident against different people and media outlets.

The court said the post lacked the ingredients of the offence, since intent to create enmity between groups is required. It also remarked: “If this should not be reported in the social media what else can be posted.” On the repeat cases, it said: “it is shocking as to how for the asking, the crimes are registered by the jurisdictional police on the same incident.”

Six Directions for Police

The order tells police to test whether the allegations disclose the offence before registering an FIR, to check for an existing case when a complaint arises from the same incident or identical content, and not to arrest mechanically after registration, in line with Section 35 of the BNSS and the Supreme Court’s Arnesh Kumar ruling. It asks the Karnataka DGP and IGP to circulate these principles to all jurisdictional officers.

Circulation to Officers Is the Next Step

The order also tells police to hold a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS where the law allows one, and to confirm intent and a link to a specific community before invoking Section 353(2) of the BNS, since criticism alone does not meet that test. The reported order does not set a deadline for circulating the directions. More court rulings are on IPB’s Daily Updates page.

Source: Karnataka High Court order, Criminal Petition No. 13010 of 2026. Also based on reporting by LiveLaw.

Image: Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru / Wikimedia Commons.