The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 24) stayed further investigation in an FIR registered against the administrator of 'Karnataka Portfolio' social media handle— Sandeep Kumar, accused of reposting a news article about a knife-threat incident in Puttur.

For context, Karnataka Portfolio is a social media page across platforms which shares news, travel guides, culture, etc. connected to the State.  

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while granting the interim stay, observed that the police had registered the crime without conducting any preliminary enquiry, which is in 'gross violation' of the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr.

In this case, the Supreme Court had upheld the guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court regulating registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts and directing the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches".

"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 preliminary enquiry in a prima facie abuse of process of law, registers a crime against several TV channels. This is in gross violation of what the apex court has held in Nallabalu…The State is not wanting to follow the said judgment of the apex court in Nallabalu and is going on registering crimes on news channels for offences under 353(2). If it is accepted, it would be permitting the State to register crime contrary to the direction of the apex court…”, the high court said.

It ordered:

“…There shall be an interim order of stay on further investigation. The State shall also explain as to why the judgment of the apex court in Nallabalu was given a go by while registering the crime in the case at hand…”

Accordingly, the court has directed the State to explain why the Supreme Court's directions were being ignored while registering such FIRs. The matter will be taken up again on September 1.

When the matter was called, the counsel for the petitioner, advocate Girish Bharadwaj, said that the Director General of Police had issued a circular regarding social media crimes along with the precedent in Nalla Balu, yet the Puttur Police and Dakshina Kannada Police have registered crimes against the petitioner and various TV channels, thereby 'clogging the criminal justice system'.

Bharadwaj submitted that his client did not author the news article and it was already published by other news portals.

For context, the petitioner, a 26-year-old, is the admin of the 'Karnataka Portfolio' social media accounts. Aggrieved by a FIR registered against him by Puttur Town Police Station on July 9, 2026, for offences under Section 353(2) (Statements conducing to public mischief) BNS the social media user has now approached the High Court.

The complainant allegedly noticed a X post on the 'Karnataka Portfolio' account which begins with 'Law and Order Under Fire: Six Held After Hindu Woman Alleges Knife Threat in Puttur….'.

The complainant alleged that this post was targeted at him and his friends, and was aimed at creating chaos with the intention to disturb the social harmony of the society and creating communal tensions.

On the other hand, the petitioner claimed that reposting a matter which was already in the public domain and carried by mainstream outlets indicates good faith of the social media account owner, which is an exception to Section 353(2).

The post in question do not make any reference to the community of the persons taken into custody, negating the ingredients for Section 353(2), the petition says. The plea states that only the description of the survivor woman who was subjected to the crime is mentioned in the posts.

“….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 petitioners contend further in the plea.

It has been further contended in the plea that the complaint expressly states that the post was 'targeted at the second respondent and his friends'. This in itself reveals that the second respondent identifies himself with the persons who are the subject of the underlying investigation into the knife-threatening incident.

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.