Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court’s sharp criticism of Whitefield police over the manner in which a social media user was detained in connection with posts about comedian Kunal Kamra’s cancelled programme has raised serious questions about the growing tendency to use police powers as an instrument of intimidation.
The court’s observations go beyond the individual case. They strike at a fundamental principle of policing in a democracy: the police are expected to enforce the law, not become an instrument for silencing criticism, intimidating citizens or punishing people before a proper investigation establishes any offence.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna’s bench came down heavily on the police while hearing a petition filed by Mohan Gowda seeking quashing of the case registered against him. The court questioned why Gowda was taken into custody even though he had already been issued a notice directing him to appear for questioning at a later date.
The manner in which the petitioner was brought from outside Bengaluru further attracted the court’s displeasure. According to the proceedings, police personnel went to Udupi and brought him to Bengaluru at night. The court questioned the necessity of such action when a notice had already been issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS requiring his appearance for investigation.
Such conduct, if established, raises an obvious question: why resort to detention when the investigating agency itself had considered a notice sufficient for securing the person’s cooperation? The power to arrest is among the most serious powers available to the police. It directly affects an individual’s personal liberty and dignity. It cannot be exercised merely because a person’s social media post is inconvenient, embarrassing or critical of an authority. Arrest or detention must have a demonstrable legal purpose and must satisfy the safeguards laid down by law and the courts.
The High Court’s remarks that the Whitefield police station should perhaps be renamed “Dark Field” underline the seriousness with which the bench viewed the alleged conduct of the police. The observation was particularly significant because the case concerns an online post and not an allegation of violence or an immediate threat to public safety.
The court also pointed to Supreme Court judgments concerning arrest and investigation in cases involving social media posts and speech. It questioned the police action in a case where, according to the court, there was no direct aggrieved complainant and the proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by a police constable.
This aspect deserves careful scrutiny. Police agencies cannot automatically assume that every controversial social media post amounts to a criminal offence. The nature of the statement, its context, the identity and standing of the complainant, the ingredients of the alleged offence and the requirement for a preliminary inquiry, wherever applicable, must be examined before coercive action is taken.
The Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions prescribed by law. The protection does not mean that every social media post is immune from investigation. But it equally does not give the police unlimited authority to summon, detain or arrest citizens merely because they have expressed an opinion.
The distinction between investigation and intimidation is therefore crucial.
The court’s observation that wearing a khaki uniform does not place police officers above the Constitution is a timely reminder to the entire police establishment. Uniforms confer responsibility and statutory powers; they do not confer immunity from constitutional accountability.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the proceedings was the issue surrounding CCTV cameras at the police station. During the hearing, the Deputy Commissioner of Police reportedly explained that the cameras were not functioning because of a power failure and the UPS had failed.
That explanation only deepened the court’s concerns. CCTV systems in police stations are not ornamental installations. They are an important accountability mechanism designed to protect both citizens and police personnel by creating an objective record of what happens inside a station.
When a person is brought to a police station against his will, the presence of functioning CCTV cameras becomes particularly important. Any unexplained failure at precisely such a time naturally raises questions about transparency and accountability.
The court therefore questioned whether the combination of alleged unlawful detention and non-functioning CCTV cameras could be intended to conceal what was happening inside the station. Such an observation should not be dismissed as merely a courtroom reprimand. It highlights the need for strict compliance with surveillance and documentation requirements at police stations.
The court has also directed senior police officers associated with the case, including the DCP, ACP and police sub-inspector, to remain personally present before it. The warning that the Bengaluru Police Commissioner could be summoned if senior officers fail to appear demonstrates how seriously the judiciary is treating the allegations.
The controversy originated after Gowda shared a video on his X account concerning the cancellation of Kamra’s programme. The petitioner had earlier submitted a representation opposing the comedian’s scheduled programme. He subsequently claimed on social media that officials had assured him that action would be taken and that the programme would be cancelled.
The police subsequently registered a case and issued him a notice for questioning. The dispute arose over what happened thereafter, particularly the decision to travel outside Bengaluru and bring him back to the city despite the existence of the notice.
