Summary: Karnataka Police has issued Circular No. L&O/MISC/06/2026 (Vol-II) laying down guidelines for registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts. The circular refers to Supreme Court judgments in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and connected matters and State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr., as well as the Karnataka High Court’s order dated 29.08.2026 in Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka and others. It reiterates the statutory framework governing registration and investigation of cognizable offences and directs police officers to avoid mechanical registration of FIRs and arrests concerning social-media posts. The guidelines require verification of the complainant’s locus standi, preliminary inquiry in specified circumstances, a high threshold for speech-related offences, protection of political speech, compliance with rules applicable to non-cognizable defamation cases and adherence to arrest safeguards. Prior legal scrutiny from the Public Prosecutor is prescribed in sensitive speech cases, while frivolous, vexatious or politically motivated complaints are to be dealt with in accordance with Section 176(1) of the BNSS. Officers must record material concerning FIR registration, preliminary inquiry, notice and arrest in investigation records. SHOs and Investigating Officers are personally responsible for compliance, supervisory officers must scrutinise relevant cases, and wilful, deliberate or reckless violations may result in departmental proceedings. The circular also requires statewide communication, training and compliance reporting to Police Headquarters.
Government of Karnataka
(Police Department)
Circular No. L&O/MISC/06/2026 (Vol-II) | Dated :21.09.2026
Sub: Guidelines for registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts.
Ref : 1) Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Ashwini kumar upadhyay V/s union of India and others in Writ Petition Civil No 943/2021 and other connected matters.
2) Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in State of Telangana vs. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Dairy No. 71178/2025, Dated 02.02.2026.
3) Order Dtd:29.08.2026 Passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ petition No: 25680/2026 (GMRES, Sri Mohan Gowda V/s State of Karnataka and others.
** * **
The Honourable Supreme Court in Writ Petition Civil No 940/2022 Shaheen Abdullah Vs Union of India and others had observed that that the Honourable court is charged with the duty to protect the fundamental rights and also preserve the constitutional values and the secular democratic character of the nation and in particular, the rule of law. The Honourable court had directed in the same order that as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., Suo-moto action will be taken to register cases when if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law. This office has issued a circular number L&O(3)/32/2022-23 on 06-08-2023.
The Honourable court in the final judgement of the case in ref (1) has concluded that:
“ 164. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, our conclusions are summarised as follows: –
I. The creation of criminal offences and the prescription of punishments lie squarely within the legislative domain. The constitutional scheme, founded upon the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions.
II. The precedents of this Court consistently affirm that while constitutional Courts may interpret the law and issue directions to secure the enforcement of fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation. At the highest, the Court may draw attention to the need for reform; the decision whether, and in what manner, to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
III. The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived. The existing framework of substantive criminal law, including the provisions of the IPC and allied legislations, adequately addresses acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. The field is, therefore, not unoccupied.
IV. The material placed before this Court indicates greater extent of the highlighted by the petitioners arise not from the absence of law, but from deficits in its consistent and effective enforcement. Such concerns, however significant, cannot justify the judicial assumption of legislative functions.
V. The statutory framework under the CrPC (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), provides a comprehensive and layered mechanism to set the criminal law in motion. The duty of the police to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence is mandatory, as settled in Lalita Kumari (supra).
VI. In cases of non-registration of FIR, the CrPC/BNSS provide efficacious remedies. An aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or corresponding Section 173(4) of BNSS and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC (corresponding Section 175 of BNSS) or proceed by way of a complaint under Section 200 of Cr:PC (corresponding Section 223 of BNSS). These remedies constitute a complete statutory architecture.
VII. The availability of such remedies, coupled with the supervisory jurisdiction of constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution demonstrates that no legislative vacuum exists warranting the intervention sought. The appropriate course lies in ensuring faithful and even-handed enforcement of existing law.
VIII. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC or corresponding Section 175 of BNSS is of wide amplitude and includes supervisory oversight over the investigation at appropriate stages. This power is intended to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a fair, impartial, and lawful manner, and may be exercised simultaneously during the stage of investigation, where the material on record discloses any deficiency, inaction, or taint in the investigative process.
IX. The requirement of prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 of CrPC (corresponding Sections 217 and 218 of BNSS) operates at the stage of taking cognizance and does not extend to the pre-cognizance stage of registration of FIR or investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC (corresponding Section 175(3) of BNSS). An order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC does not amount to taking cognizance within the meaning of Section 190 of CrPC (corresponding Section 210 of BNSS).
X. While we decline to issue directions of the nature sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that issues relating to ‘hate speech’ and ‘rumour mongering’ bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity, and constitutional order. It would be open to the Union of India and competent legislative authorities to consider, in their wisdom, whether any further legislative or policy measures are warranted in light of evolving societal challenges or to bring about suitable amendments as suggested by the Law Commission’s 267th Report dated 23rd March, 2017”
It has been observed that the police officers are registering the case relating to social media posts mechanically without undertaking preliminary enquiries as stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 1545/2025, dated 28.03.2025. This office has already issued a circular bearing No. CRM-3/41/2024, dated 04.07.2025, Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court relating to the registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts in the referred judgement.
In this regard a circular was issued vide No:L&O/MISC/06/2026 Dtd:07.02.2026. In view of Directions by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka vide ref (2) the following directions are issued to the police officers of the state are instructed to adhere to the guidelines to avoid mechanical registration of the FIRs and arrest relating to social media posts. Therefore, when any complaint or information is received seeking registration of the FIR relating to social media posts, then the following guidelines shall be followed by the police officers”
1. Verification of locus standi: Before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences, the police must verify whether the complainant qualifies as the “person aggrieved” in terms of law. Complaints by unrelated third parties lacking standing are not maintainable, except where the report concerns a cognizable offence.
2. Preliminary inquiry in cognizable offences: Where a representation/complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police shall, prior to registration of crime, conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out.
3. High threshold for media post/speech-related offences: No case alleging promotion of enmity, intentional insult, public mischief, threat to public order, or sedition shall be registered unless there exists prima facie material disclosing incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder. This threshold must be applied in line with the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
4. Protection of political speech/post: The police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech. Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may criminal law be invoked. Constitutional protections for free political criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must be scrupulously enforced. .
5. Defamation as a non-cognizable offence: Since defamation is classified as a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot directly register an FIR or crime in such matters. The complainant must be directed to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. Police action may follow only upon a specific order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS.
6. Compliance with arrest guidelines: In all cases, the police shall strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed.
7. Prior legal scrutiny in sensitive cases: In matters involving political speech/post or other sensitive forms of expression, the police shall obtain prior legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor before registering an FIR, to ensure that the proposed action is legally sustainable
8. Frivolous or motivated complaints: Where a complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or politically motivated, the police shall close the matter under Section 176(1) of the BNSS, citing absence of sufficient grounds for investigation.”
9. All officers shall strictly follow the safeguards prescribed in Nalla Balu v. State of Telangana and Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka concerning social media complaints, FIR registration, preliminary enquiry, notice and arrest.
10. Any violation of the prescribed procedures shall make the concerned officer liable for departmental proceedings and other legal consequences under law.
11. All material relating to the decision to register an FIR, conduct a preliminary enquiry, issue notice or effect arrest shall be properly recorded in the case diary and investigation records.
12. SHOs and Investigating Officers shall remain personally responsible for compliance with these safeguards.
13. Jurisdictional ACPs/DySPs shall examine compliance during investigation reviews, while DCPs/SPs shall undertake periodic scrutiny of cases relating to social media posts.
14. Allegations of illegal detention, mechanical arrest or non-compliance with Section 35 of the BNSS shall be promptly verified by the jurisdictional DCP/SP, and appropriate action shall be taken.
15. Any wilful, deliberate or reckless violation of the safeguards shall expose the erring officer, irrespective of rank, to appropriate departmental proceedings.
16. Commissioners of Police, Range IGPs/DIGs and Superintendents of Police shall ensure that these guidelines are communicated to every Police Station, Sub-Division, Circle and investigating officer.
17. The guidelines shall be explained during crime meetings, station briefings, investigation reviews and training programmes.
18. All Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of Police shall submit a consolidated compliance report to Police Headquarters confirming communication and implementation of these guidelines.
Receipt of this circular shall be acknowledged immediately. Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of Police shall submit a compliance report regarding communication and briefing of all personnel to Police Headquarters by 22/09/2026 for placing the consolidated compliance before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
(Dr. M.A. Saleem, IPS)
Director General and
Inspector General of Police,
Karnataka State, Bengaluru.
TO:
1. All Compols
2. All Rangepols
3. All Dispols
including KGF & Railways
