BENGALURU: To prevent the mechanical registration of crimes, multiplicity of proceedings arising from social media posts and arbitrary exercise of police powers, the Karnataka High Court issued guidelines to be followed by the police.
Justice M Nagaprasanna also directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police to ensure that 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.
These guidelines are in addition to the ones issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil and the High Court of Telangana in the case of Nalla Balu.
The HC issued the guidelines while allowing the petition filed by one Sandeep Kumar, residing in the city, challenging the crimes registered against him, which is one among the seven cases registered over a same social post. Mohammad Shahanawaz had filed a case against the petitioner over a social media post on stalking and following of a woman by a group of youths, at Puttur town police station in Dakshina Kannada district.
Stating that the guidelines issued by the police authorities are always subject to the provisions of the BNSS and the law declared by the apex court, the HC said that whenever a complaint is received alleging commission of an offence arising from a social media post, statement or expression, the police shall examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged.
When a complaint arises from a social media post, the jurisdictional police shall ascertain whether a crime has already been registered in relation thereto. If already registered, a fresh crime shall not be registered merely because the complaint is different. In cases where a preliminary inquiry is permissible under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, the jurisdictional police shall consider its necessity and conduct it in strict conformity with statutory conditions, requisite permission and prescribed timelines.
Such inquiry shall not become a device to avoid registration of a cognizable offence where registration is mandated by law, the court clarified.
Noting that mere criticism or expression of disagreement shall not be mechanically brought within the ambit of Section 353(2) of the BNS, the court said that the jurisdictional police shall examine whether the impugned statement, rumour, report or expression satisfies the specific ingredients prescribed under this provision.
Registration of a crime shall not automatically result in arrest unless the procedure under Section 35 of the BNSS is followed, the court cautioned, while directing the state police chief to ensure strict compliance.
