Karnataka High Court: Quashes Amit Malviya FIR Over BNS Sections

• The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against former BJP IT Cell convenor Amit Malviya over a social media post.
• The FIR stemmed from an X post criticizing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's remarks on "Operation Sindoor."
• Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed Malviya's petition to invalidate the charges.
• The case involved Sections 192 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, related to provocation and public mischief.
• This ruling offers important guidance on the application of BNS sections concerning social media posts and political criticism.

This ruling by the Karnataka High Court provides crucial guidance on the interpretation and application of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 192 and 353, particularly in the context of social media posts and political criticism.

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) that had been lodged against Amit Malviya, the former convenor of the BJP's IT Cell. The legal action stemmed from a social media post Malviya published on X, which contained critical commentary regarding Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and his statements concerning "Operation Sindoor." Justice M Nagaprasanna presided over the case, granting Malviya's petition to invalidate the charges brought against him.

Malviya had initiated legal proceedings to challenge the FIR, which invoked sections 192 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). These specific sections pertain to wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause a riot and public mischief, respectively. The court's decision effectively brings an end to the criminal proceedings initiated based on the controversial online content.

The core of the dispute was an X post made by Amit Malviya on May 20, 2025. This post featured a composite image, with one half depicting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and the other half showing Pakistani Army chief Asim Munir. The accompanying text was highly critical of Rahul Gandhi's remarks regarding "Operation Sindoor," which refers to India's cross-border military action against Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack.

In his post, Malviya explicitly accused the Congress leader of echoing the sentiments of Pakistan and those who benefit from its agenda. Furthermore, the post questioned why Rahul Gandhi had not extended congratulations to the Prime Minister of India concerning "Operation Sindoor," and provocatively speculated whether Gandhi was aspiring to receive the Nishan-e-Pakistan, the highest civilian honor awarded by Pakistan. A complaint against Malviya was subsequently filed by Sridhar MM, a functionary of the Congress party, who alleged that the post was false, malicious, and provocative, possessing the potential to incite hostility.

This ruling by the Karnataka High Court provides crucial guidance on the interpretation and application of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 192 and 353, particularly in the context of social media posts and political criticism. The decision sets a significant precedent regarding the threshold required to initiate criminal proceedings for alleged incitement or public mischief under the new criminal code. It underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding freedom of speech on digital platforms, even when the content is sharply critical or controversial.

Lawyers advising clients on online expression or those defending against similar charges under the BNS should carefully consider this judgment. The quashing of the FIR suggests a high bar for proving intent to cause a riot or public mischief through political commentary on social media. This development is particularly relevant for the landscape of freedom of speech on social media in India, as it clarifies the boundaries within which political discourse can operate without attracting criminal liability under these specific sections of the BNS.

This ruling provides crucial guidance on the interpretation and application of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 192 and 353 concerning social media posts and political criticism, setting a precedent for the threshold required to initiate criminal proceedings for alleged incitement or public mischief. Lawyers should note this decision when advising clients on online expression or defending against similar charges under the new criminal code.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources.