The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP) to issue statewide guidelines on handling criminal cases arising from social-media posts, after questioning Whitefield Police over the alleged premature detention of Mohan Gowda, who had posted about the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra’s Bengaluru show.
Justice M Nagaprasanna questioned DCP Saidulu Adavath, ACP Reena Suvarna and the investigating officer over why Gowda was taken from Udupi despite being served a notice to appear before police. The court said officers violating the guidelines should face departmental inquiry and potentially costs imposed by constitutional courts.
The direction follows the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision in State of Telangana v Nalla Balu, which upheld safeguards against mechanical criminal action over social-media posts.
Court Questions Police Conduct
The controversy began after the Hindu Rashtra Samanvaya Samithi submitted a representation to Whitefield Police opposing Kunal Kamra’s proposed comedy show at Uru in Whitefield, citing concerns over communal harmony. The organisers later shifted the show to Koramangala, after which Gowda posted on social media describing the development as a “victory for Hindu unity”.
Whitefield Police subsequently registered a suo motu case against him under Sections 217 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging that his post contained false or misleading information and could cause disharmony.
The dispute escalated when police allegedly took Gowda from Udupi to Bengaluru before the expiry of the three-day period mentioned in a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
His lawyer, Girish Bharadwaj, told the court that Gowda had effectively been taken into custody before he had an opportunity to comply with the notice. The High Court questioned why officers needed to travel to Udupi to bring him to Bengaluru when a notice to appear had already been issued.
The court subsequently summoned DCP Saidulu Adavath, ACP Reena Suvarna and investigating officer Preetham. During the hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the police hierarchy over the manner in which the arrest was handled.
“Are you not governed by the rule of law?” the court asked, according to reports. The judge also questioned whether there was “a semblance of fairness” in the arrest and asked what the DG and IGP were doing while such incidents were allegedly taking place.
‘Whitefield’ Or ‘Darkfield’?
Justice Nagaprasanna’s criticism extended beyond the individual case, with the court pointing to what it described as repeated instances of Whitefield Police allegedly disregarding Supreme Court-prescribed procedures.
The judge reportedly suggested that the station be renamed “Darkfield”, asking whether this was how police powers were supposed to be exercised. The court also referred to an earlier proceeding in which the station had been unable to produce CCTV footage, citing an explanation that there had been no power supply.
The High Court stressed that police officers are themselves subject to the rule of law. “In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the police are not law unto themselves,” the court observed, adding that the power to arrest cannot become an instrument of oppression.
It further said that wearing a police uniform does not confer immunity from constitutional discipline. The court warned of departmental action and adverse service-record entries in the context of repeated violations. The latest order also places responsibility on the senior police leadership.
The DG & IGP has been directed to issue a circular to police stations across Karnataka incorporating the safeguards laid down in Nalla Balu. The circular is expected to make clear that officers who violate the prescribed procedures can face departmental inquiry, while constitutional courts may impose costs when such violations come before them.
The direction is significant because Karnataka Police had already issued guidance in February 2026 following the Supreme Court’s decision. The Nalla Balu framework calls for scrutiny of the complainant’s locus standi, preliminary inquiry where required, a higher threshold for offences involving social-media posts or political speech, safeguards concerning defamation and arrests, and attention to frivolous or motivated complaints. The Supreme Court dismissed Telangana’s challenge to the High Court’s guidelines on February 2, 2026.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Police powers exist to protect citizens and maintain public order, but those powers cannot be separated from the constitutional safeguards that limit them. Whether a person is a political activist, comedian, critic, supporter or opponent of a particular ideology, due process must remain the same. The Karnataka High Court’s intervention is a reminder that accountability cannot stop at issuing rules; institutions must ensure that officers understand, follow and are held responsible for those rules.
Also read: ‘Why Drag Castes, States, Religions?’: Anand Dubey Criticises Samay Raina Over ‘Latent’ Jokes
