Back
Stays FIR Against Social Media Admin For Violating Nalla Balu Guidelines
The on Monday delivered a sharp rebuke to the police machinery, staying further investigation in an FIR registered against Sandeep Kumar, the administrator of the popular social media handle 'Karnataka Portfolio'. The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the police had registered the crime without conducting any , terming the action a "" of the ’s landmark judgment in The petitioner had been booked under for reposting a news article about a knife-threat incident in Puttur.
Strictures Against Mechanical FIRs
While granting interim stay, the court did not mince words.
"A perusal of complaint would indicate that the acquaintances of the complainant have seen a particular social media post and indicated it to the complainant which the complainant assumes that it is upon him and seeks to register a crime… The police without rhyme or reason or even without conducting a
in a
, registers a crime against several TV channels. This is in
of what the apex court has held in Nallabalu…,"
said Justice Nagaprasanna. The court further noted that if such
were permitted, it would allow the State to flout binding
directives.
The order directed the State to explain why the apex court's directions were being ignored while registering such FIRs. The matter is slated for further hearing on .
The Nalla Balu Precedent
In
Nalla Balu
, the
had upheld guidelines framed by the
to regulate registration of FIRs arising from social media posts. The guidelines specifically caution police against mechanically registering FIRs for
"harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches."
They mandate a
to assess whether the content actually falls within the ambit of the alleged offence. The
's intervention reinforces that this safeguard applies across all states, and that police cannot bypass it under the guise of maintaining law and order.
Background of the FIR
The trouble began when Sandeep Kumar, a 26-year-old who runs 'Karnataka Portfolio'—a social media page sharing news, travel guides, and cultural content—reposted an article headlined
"Law and Order Under Fire: Six Held After Hindu Woman Alleges Knife Threat in Puttur…"
The complainant, who is one of the respondents in the case, alleged that the post was
"targeted at him and his friends,"
and claimed it was intended to create chaos, disturb social harmony, and stir communal tensions.
However, the petitioner's counsel, advocate
, argued that his client merely republished content already in the public domain and carried by mainstream news portals. He emphasized that the post did not identify the community of the persons arrested, only referencing the survivor woman's description.
"A statement that does not set one identified class against another cannot attract the section, however unpalatable it may be to an individual reader,"
the plea contended.
Petitioner's Good Faith Defence
Bharadwaj further submitted that the had issued a circular on social media crimes that incorporated the
Nalla Balu
precedent. Yet, the
and
had registered crimes against his client and various TV channels, thereby
"clogging the criminal justice system."
He argued that reposting a matter already in the public domain fell within the
to Section 353(2), and that the
were clearly missing.
Legal Analysis: Ingredients of Section 353(2)
Section 353(2) of the BNS penalises
"statements conducing to
."
To attract this provision, a statement must be deliberately made to cause or likely to cause fear or alarm to the public, or to induce any person to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility. Crucially, the statement must target a specific identifiable class or group. The High Court's interim stay suggests that merely reposting a news article, without additional inciting commentary, does not satisfy these elements. The court's insistence on a
aligns with the principle that a complaint's subjective perception of being targeted is insufficient justification for an FIR.
Broader Implications for Free Speech and Police Practice
This ruling sends a clear message to investigating agencies: the
Nalla Balu
guidelines are not optional. The High Court's observation that the State
"is not wanting to follow the said judgment"
and is
"going on registering crimes on news channels"
highlights a systemic disregard for procedural safeguards. For legal professionals, the case reinforces the importance of judicial oversight in curbing frivolous FIRs that can chill legitimate speech and burden the criminal justice system.
The order also underscores the need for police to differentiate between actual incitement and mere dissemination of news. With social media becoming a primary news source for many, administrators like Kumar operate in a grey zone. By staying the investigation, the court has effectively protected the right to share information unless it demonstrably meets the threshold of .
Conclusion
The 's interim stay against the FIR is a significant check on police overreach in social media cases. By invoking the Nalla Balu precedent, the court has reaffirmed that preliminary enquiries are a prerequisite before registering such offences. The next hearing on will determine whether the State can justify its actions or must face further judicial censure. For now, the case stands as a reminder that the criminal law cannot be wielded as a tool to silence the sharing of news, absent concrete evidence of intent to cause .
