The Karnataka High Court has taken strong exception to the manner in which Whitefield police arrested Hindutva activist Mohan Gowda over a Facebook post concerning the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra’s show in Bengaluru.
Justice M Nagaprasanna criticised the police for what he described as a recurring practice of issuing a notice requiring an accused to appear on a later date, only to arrest the person before that deadline arrives.
The Court was hearing Gowda’s plea challenging his arrest in the case registered over his social media post.
Gowda, a member of the Hindu Rashtra Samanvaya Samithi, had earlier approached Whitefield police claiming that Kamra’s proposed comedy performance at Uru could lead to communal disharmony. The event was subsequently cancelled.
Following the cancellation, Gowda posted on Facebook describing it as a victory for Hindu unity.
Police subsequently registered an FIR against him under Sections 217 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging offences relating to providing false information to a public servant and making statements capable of causing public mischief.
A notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was issued to Gowda on August 5. The notice required him to appear before the police within three days.
However, instead of waiting for the period specified in the notice to expire, police travelled to Udupi and arrested Gowda.
That sequence drew sharp criticism from the High Court.
Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the basis on which the police had perceived a threat of communal disharmony from Gowda’s Facebook post. The Court observed that the alleged concern appeared to have been built around what it termed an “imaginary” apprehension of disharmony.
The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which Section 35(3) notices were being used by the Whitefield police.
According to the Court, the police station appeared to have repeatedly followed the same course of action—serving notices fixing a future date for appearance and then taking accused persons into custody before they were required to appear.
The Court noted that such conduct could amount to a violation of the law governing arrests and the safeguards surrounding notices of appearance.
The High Court also pointed to a recent case in which the same police station had faced criticism for a similar course of action. In that matter, Justice Nagaprasanna had declared an arrest illegal and directed the police to pay ₹3 lakh in costs.
In Gowda’s case, the Court has now directed senior police officials to explain the circumstances surrounding the arrest.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police and the police constable involved in Gowda’s arrest have been directed to remain present before the Court.
The Court further warned that if the DCP failed to appear, the Bengaluru Police Commissioner could be summoned.
The order reflects the Court’s growing concern over the manner in which arrest powers are being exercised, particularly where the police have already chosen to issue a statutory notice requiring an accused to appear for questioning.
