High Court Questions Police Action
The Whitefield Police Illegal Detention controversy reached the Karnataka High Court after an activist challenged an FIR and his subsequent detention. Justice M. Nagaprasanna strongly criticised the conduct of Whitefield Police Station. The Court questioned the alleged misuse of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The case arose from social media posts concerning a Kunal Kamra event. Police registered an FIR following the online comments.
However, the petitioner challenged both the criminal proceedings and the manner in which police took him into custody.
Court Flags Misuse Of BNSS Notice
Section 35(3) of the BNSS allows police to issue a notice directing a person to appear before them.
In this case, however, the Court found serious procedural concerns. Police personnel allegedly travelled to take the petitioner into custody before the appearance period in their own notice had begun.
Therefore, the Court questioned why the police issued a notice if they intended to take immediate coercive action.
The Bench also referred to similar concerns raised in earlier cases. Moreover, it indicated that such conduct could undermine the safeguards built into the statutory notice procedure.
Social Media Post Led To FIR
The proceedings arose in Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Case No. 25680/2026).
The FIR concerned social media posts linked to a Kunal Kamra event. Advocate Girish Bharadwaj appeared for the petitioner.
He argued that the posts amounted to protected speech. Therefore, he questioned the basis for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The Court subsequently examined both the FIR and the police action that followed.
High Court Stays Criminal Proceedings
After considering the circumstances, Justice Nagaprasanna stayed the criminal proceedings.
The Court also took a serious view of the alleged procedural violations. Consequently, it sought accountability from senior police officials.
The judge directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and sub-inspector to personally appear before the Court.
Their appearance was scheduled for August 29, 2026.
Court Seeks Accountability From Senior Officers
The Court’s direction places the conduct of the police officers under direct judicial scrutiny.
In particular, the Bench questioned whether authorities had followed the safeguards under Section 35(3) before taking coercive steps.
Furthermore, the Court expressed concern about what it viewed as a recurring method of using statutory notices before making arrests.
The Whitefield Police Illegal Detention case therefore raises wider questions about procedural safeguards and police accountability under the BNSS.
Case Highlights Importance Of Procedural Safeguards
The proceedings highlight the need for police authorities to follow statutory procedures before restricting an individual’s liberty.
A notice under Section 35(3) serves a specific legal purpose. Therefore, authorities must respect the opportunity and timeline provided through that notice.
The Karnataka High Court will now examine the explanation of the officers concerned. Meanwhile, the stay on the criminal proceedings provides interim relief to the petitioner.
