Karnataka HC Extends Protection in BJP 'X' Handle Case Under New BNS

Bengaluru, India – The Karnataka High Court has extended the interim protection from arrest for the individual in charge of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Karnataka's 'X' (formerly Twitter) handle. The case, one of the early tests for political speech under the new criminal codes, concerns a social media post that allegedly drew a comparison between former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Adolf Hitler.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum granted the extension after the state sought more time to prepare its response. The court continued its earlier directive that "no coercive steps" be taken against the petitioners, providing temporary relief in a politically charged legal battle. The petition seeks the complete quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against the party's social media head.

---

Background of the Dispute

The legal proceedings were initiated after a complaint was filed regarding a post on the official 'X' account of BJP Karnataka. The post, which has since been deleted, allegedly likened former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the German dictator Adolf Hitler. Following the complaint, a case was registered under Sections 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 192 (Fabricating false evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The petitioners, represented by the in-charge of the social media handle, promptly moved the High Court, challenging the validity of the criminal proceedings. Their primary plea is for the quashing of the FIR, arguing that the contents of the social media post do not constitute the offenses alleged. The case, titled BJP4 KARNATAKA (TWITTER ACC) v STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER , is being closely watched by legal experts as it involves the interpretation and application of the newly enacted BNS in the context of political expression and digital media.

Court Proceedings and Legal Arguments

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners reiterated their reliance on a key Supreme Court precedent to support their plea for quashing the case.

"The petitioners submitted that on the last occasion, they intended to rely on the Supreme Court's judgment in Imran Pratapgarhi's case, seeking quashing of the case registered against the present petitioners," the court noted.

In the previous hearing, the court had taken cognizance of this submission and directed the state to seek instructions. It was in this context that the initial interim order for protection from coercive action was granted.

When the matter, listed as CRL.P 9659/2025, was called for hearing again, the state public prosecutor requested a further adjournment to formulate its arguments, which the court granted. Seizing the opportunity, the petitioners' counsel pressed for the extension of the interim relief, arguing that the circumstances that warranted protection in the first place had not changed.

The petitioners, however, prayed that the earlier interim order for no coercive action against them be extended, and the same was allowed.

Justice Magadum accepted the plea and extended the protective order until the next date of hearing, ensuring the petitioners remain shielded from arrest while the legal questions are adjudicated.

Legal Implications and the BNS Test

This case stands as a significant early judicial examination of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The invocation of Section 353 and Section 192 of the BNS raises pertinent questions about their applicability to social media posts critical of political figures.

Legal analysts are particularly focused on the state's rationale for applying these specific sections. Section 353 of the BNS, which corresponds to the identically numbered section in the old IPC, typically involves physical assault or the use of criminal force to prevent a public servant from performing their duty. Its application to a social media post is, on its face, unconventional and likely to be a central point of contention. Similarly, Section 192 of the BNS (akin to Section 192 of the IPC) deals with fabricating false evidence with the intent to mislead a judicial proceeding or a public servant. How a historical comparison, even if deemed offensive, amounts to fabricating evidence will be a crucial question for the state to answer.

The petitioners' reliance on the Imran Pratapgarhi judgment is also noteworthy. That Supreme Court case dealt with the quashing of an FIR for alleged inflammatory speech, where the Court emphasized the need for a prima facie case and cautioned against the misuse of criminal law to stifle dissent. The outcome of this petition will depend on whether the Karnataka High Court finds the legal principles from Pratapgarhi applicable to the facts at hand, particularly under the new statutory framework of the BNS.

For legal professionals, the case serves as a critical marker for the judiciary's approach to online political speech. It highlights the continuing tension between the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the state's power to regulate it through criminal law. The court's final decision on the quashing petition could set an important precedent for how cases involving political commentary, satire, and criticism are treated under the BNS, 2023, potentially shaping the contours of digital free speech in India for years to come. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.