New Delhi: The Karnataka high court has directed the police in the state to stop criminalising free speech. In a judgment pronounced a week ago, a bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said that the police must first examine if an allegation against words spoken or posted on social media amounted to the charges it was applying against the person.The judge noted that it is “shocking” how “crime after crime” is being registered in police stations merely because someone claimed a particular act had been committed. He said:“It is shocking as to how, for the asking, crimes are registered by the jurisdictional police on the same incident without there being any ingredient of crime and without holding any preliminary inquiry…”The court also reminded the police it has to take certain steps before proceeding with criminal FIRs, including assessing the complaint against what has really been posted or said by anyone.“Mere reproduction of the language of a penal provision shall not substitute for factual allegations disclosing its ingredients,” said while hearing the case of a man booked for “promoting enmity” after he had reposted on X a news report about six young men alelgedly threatening a woman.“It is not a stray incident or a [AI-] generated incident that the petitioner re-posts. It was a serious incident of six young men forming a group, following or stalking a woman in their Thar SUV and threatening her time and again. If this should not be reported in the social media, what else can be posted,” the court asked.As per a report in Live Law, Kumar had also writen: “law and order under fire: Six held after Hindu woman alleges knife threat in Puttur”.The accused in the case have denied they were stalking the woman, as per a report in the Times of India and complained to police that a religious colour was being created by news and social media reports, which led the police to register two cases – one by an accused occupant of the Thar, who complained that the reposted social media message had “false information” that aimed to create communal tension.Six more cases were registered by police in relation to this matter, Live Law reports. “According to the state, the petitioner’s statements resulted in social disharmony,” it reported.Also read: Bengaluru Detentions: Karnataka CM’s Promise to Protect Protest Rights Must Reach Police, Say Journalists, ActivistsReferring to the bigger picture, the court noted that successive crimes were mechanically being registered against accused persons based on the same incident or social media comment. Justice Nagaprasanna said that it was “indiscriminate exercise of police powers without adherence to statutory and constitutional safeguards”.The court then reminded police that it must conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which specifically grants police the powers to conduct such a probe before filing an FIR.He also said that the “specific ingredients” and “intent” required to invoke Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) must be ascertained. This provision penalises circulating false information or rumours with the intent to promote enmity between communities.The section makes it is a criminal offence to make, publish or circulate any statement, false information, rumour or report on the grounds of religion, race, gender, caste, community or place of birth of a person. The condition is that the act (including a social media post) must be done with the explicit intent to create, or be highly likely to cause, feelings of enmity, hatred, animosity or ill-will between these classes or social groups.It, accordingly, said the guidelines for police to follow are as follows, as per Live Law:Check the act against the allegations: Police must examine if the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence.Double jeopardy: If complaints arise from the same incident or identical social media expressions, police must check if a crime is already registered.Conduct preliminary inquiry, not as a ruse to avoid filing FIRs in some cases: A preliminary inquiry, where permissible, must be conducted, without trying to use the provision to avoid registering a mandated cognisable offences.The criminal law defines specific crimes: If there is no intent, nor even a visible criminal act behind a statement, police cannot start penalising criticism.No mechanical arrest: Registration of a crime does not automatically mean arrest. Police must strictly comply with Section 35 of the BNSS and the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.Section 35 of the BNSS defines the specific cirumstances under which a police officer can make an arrest. The court then directed the DG and IGP of Karnataka to ensure “strict compliance” with the guidelines laid down in the order, in accordance with Supreme Court precedents.