BENGALURU : The Karnataka High Court criticised the State government for allegedly prioritising criminal cases over social media posts, while hearing a petition filed by a law student challenging FIRs registered against him over a post on X relating to the Bantwal murder case.
Justice M Nagaprasanna heard a criminal petition filed by Bengaluru-based law student Kiran Aradhya, who sought the quashing of FIRs registered against him at the High Grounds Police Station in Bengaluru and Bantwal Police Station in Dakshina Kannada district. The FIRs followed his social media post on the murder of a young woman, Lavanya, at the Bantwal bus stand.
But dictator who?
🥄: MODI https://t.co/qTa7gbxtTa pic.twitter.com/fo2cTZW3cB
— Kiran Aradhya (@KiranAradhyaadv) July 20, 2026
During the hearing, the court orally remarked that the State appeared more interested in registering FIRs and pursuing investigations over social media posts than taking stringent action against those accused of murder. It warned that such an approach could create an atmosphere of lawlessness. er, BJP MP and senior advocate Tejasvi Surya argued that the tweet did not contain any reference to any religion, caste, community or identifiable group. He submitted that the criminal proceedings had been initiated by attributing communal motives to the post based purely on interpretation and assumptions rather than the actual contents of the message.
The Hon'ble High Court has stayed both the FIRs filed against me by the Congress government, the very same government that chose to withdraw cases against those ransacked police stations.
My sincere thanks to @Girishvhp Ji and @Tejasvi_Surya Ji for personally appearing and… https://t.co/r0uRP76BRB pic.twitter.com/VOTaqHNlRI
— Kiran Aradhya (@KiranAradhyaadv) July 20, 2026
Surya contended that the post merely expressed an opinion on the incident and did not incite hatred or violence against any community. He urged the court to quash the FIRs, arguing that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process and would have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
Opposing the petition, State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesh submitted that the FIRs had been registered only two days earlier and that the police had not even issued a notice to the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner had approached the High Court prematurely and requested the court not to pass any order that would shield him from investigation.
Rejecting the State’s objection, Justice Nagaprasanna referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Javed Ahmed Hazam vs State of Maharashtra, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Patricia Mukhim vs State of Meghalaya. The court observed that these judgments laid down important principles governing offences involving alleged inflammatory speech and social media posts.
The High Court noted that, prima facie, the language used in the petitioner’s post did not contain any direct or indirect reference to a specific religious or social community. It is undoubtedly a brutal incident deserving condemnation. However, the language employed in the petitioner’s post does not disclose any direct or indirect reference aimed at any particular community,” the court observed.
Taking note of these circumstances, the court held that it would be appropriate to stay further investigation until a detailed examination of the legal issues was completed. Accordingly, the High Court granted an interim stay on further investigation in both FIRs registered against Kiran Aradhya at High Grounds and Bantwal police stations. It also issued an urgent notice to the State prosecution and posted the matter for further hearing on August 7.
Senior advocate Tejasvi Surya appeared for the petitioner in the High Grounds FIR, while advocate Girish Bharadwaj represented him in the proceedings relating to the Bantwal Police Station case.
According to the complaint, the petitioner had described the murder accused in his X post as a “monster” and alleged that the Congress government was attempting to protect him. The complainant claimed that the post created an impression that the State government was deliberately shielding the accused without relying on any official investigation, judicial finding or evidence.
The complaint was filed by Kushal Haruve Gowda, Vice-President of the Bengaluru West District Congress Committee. Acting on the complaint, police registered separate FIRs under Sections 192 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to acts likely to cause public disorder and dissemination of false information capable of disturbing public peace.
The High Court’s interim order puts the investigation on hold until it examines whether the FIRs disclose any cognisable offence warranting criminal prosecution. The case is expected to address the balance between freedom of speech on social media and the scope of criminal liability for online expressions.
