Vague Allegations of Promoting Enmity in Social Media Post Not Enough to Sustain FIR, Says Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an FIR against a man accused of promoting enmity through a social media post, ruling that vague and laconic allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 153A of the IPC).

The single-judge bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar held that the continuation of criminal proceedings based on such a complaint would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

---

Case Background

The petitioner, Sri. Narayana Nayak, approached the High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him by the Puttur Town Police. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging that Nayak had uploaded a post on Facebook stating, "Treatment should be denied to Muslim patients in all hospitals."

The complaint, filed by a Police Sub-Inspector, claimed that this post was made in the context of an earlier incident involving the arrest of individuals for misbehaving with a female doctor. It was alleged that the post, which was subsequently circulated in WhatsApp groups, had the potential to create enmity, hatred, and ill-will between communities and disturb public tranquility.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner's advocate, Sri. Suyog Herele E., argued that the complaint and FIR conspicuously lacked the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 196(1)(a) of the BNS. He contended that for such a charge to stand, there must be a clear intention (mens rea) to promote disharmony, which was absent in this case. He relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand , which have established a high threshold for invoking this provision.

Respondent's Counsel: The State Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.A. Belliappa, countered that the content of the Facebook post prima facie indicated the commission of the offence. He argued that the post was inflammatory and capable of creating communal discord, and therefore, the investigation should be allowed to proceed.

Court's Analysis and Precedents

Justice Krishna Kumar embarked on a detailed analysis of the law surrounding Section 153A IPC (now Section 196 BNS), heavily citing precedents set by the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated several key principles:

Intention is Sine Qua Non: The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity. The prosecution must prove the existence of mens rea.

The Reasonable Person Test: The effect of the words must be judged from the perspective of a "reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous" person, not from the viewpoint of those with "weak and vacillating minds".

Necessity of Two Groups: The provision requires the promotion of enmity between two or more distinct religious, racial, or communal groups.

Freedom of Speech and Dissent: The Court referenced the Javed Ahmad Hajam case, where the Supreme Court observed that if every criticism or protest of state actions is treated as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy itself will not survive.

In a pivotal excerpt from its analysis, the Court observed:

"If the impugned complaint and FIR are examined bearing in mind the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the allegations do not disclose any inflammatory statement is made by the petitioner – accused No.1 so as to attract the offences punishable under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023..."

The judgment highlighted that the complaint made "vague, bald, omnibus and laconic allegations" which were insufficient to make out a prima facie case.

Final Decision

Concluding that allowing the proceedings to continue would be a misuse of the legal process, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No.30/2025 against Sri. Narayana Nayak. The decision reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding freedom of speech from being curtailed by the misuse of penal provisions intended to prevent serious public disorder.