Avoid mechanical FIRs on social media complaints: DGP

Bengaluru: Karnataka DGP M A Saleem has issued a fresh set of guidelines on the registration of FIRs related to social media posts, observing that they are being registered “mechanically, without undertaking preliminary enquiries”. A circular in this regard was issued by the office of the Director General and Inspector General of Police on February 7, officials said on Monday.

“It has been observed that police officers are registering cases relating to social media posts mechanically, without undertaking preliminary enquiries as stipulated by the Supreme Court of India in Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat, dated March 28, 2025. This office had already issued a circular dated July 4, 2025, in this regard,” it stated.

The circular also pointed out that the Supreme Court 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 judgment.

“Hence, the same guidelines are adopted herewith, and the police officers of the state are instructed to adhere to the guidelines to avoid mechanical registration of FIRs and arrests relating to social media posts,” it stated.

According to the circular, when any complaint or information is received seeking registration of an FIR relating to social media posts, specific guidelines must be followed by the police, including verification of locus standi, conducting preliminary enquiries in cognizable offences, and treating defamation as a non-cognizable offence.

It stated that before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences, the police must verify whether the complainant qualifies as the “person aggrieved” under the law.

“Complaints by unrelated third parties lacking standing are not maintainable, except where the report concerns a cognizable offence,” the guideline cited in the circular stated.

In cases where a representation or complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police shall, before registration of the crime, conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out.

“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 vs State of Bihar, 1962, and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, 2015,” the circular stated.

With regard to posts related to political speech, the circular instructs that 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,” it added.

Highlighting that defamation is classified as a non-cognizable offence, the circular further stated that police cannot directly register an FIR or a 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,” it added.

The circular noted that in all cases, the police shall strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, 2014. “Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed,” it said.

The circular further stated that in matters involving political speech 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. “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,” it added.