The Andhra Pradesh High Court issues a stern warning to magistrates, urging strict compliance with SC rulings against routine arrests for social media posts, or face contempt and disciplinary action.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
ANDHRA PRADESH: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, through Circular No. 8/2025 dated 05.07.2025, has issued strict directions to all Judicial Magistrates in the state, emphasizing adherence to the landmark Supreme Court judgments in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat.
The circular addresses the rising trend of multiple FIRs being registered across various police stations for social media posts or comments where the maximum punishment is less than seven years. It was observed that many Magistrates have been mechanically remanding accused persons without complying with the safeguards laid down in these key judgments.
ALSO READ: Andhra Pradesh High Court: SC Status Lost After Conversion to Christianity
In Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court mandated that arrests in such cases should not be automatic and that Magistrates must be satisfied that the arrest is necessary, especially when offences are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment.
Further strengthening this safeguard, the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi (2025) ruled that before registering an FIR in cases involving speech, writing, or artistic expression (with punishment between 3 to 7 years), a preliminary enquiry must be conducted under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and only after approval from a Deputy Superintendent of Police. This enquiry must be completed within 14 days.
In light of these rulings, the High Court has instructed Magistrates to ensure compliance before ordering any remand in such cases, failing which they may face contempt of court and departmental proceedings. The circular is a significant move to uphold the right to free speech and ensure that the criminal justice process is not misused to suppress lawful expression.
Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar
In the landmark judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court addressed the rampant misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, both of which are cognizable and non-bailable offences.
The case arose when Arnesh Kumar’s wife accused him and his family of dowry demands, and his anticipatory bail was denied by lower courts.
The Supreme Court observed that arrests in such cases were being made in a mechanical and routine manner, often without any genuine need, leading to harassment of innocent people, including elderly relatives and women living abroad.
The Court noted that the police frequently failed to apply their mind or justify arrests under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), despite legal safeguards. Emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with societal order, the Court laid down specific guidelines.
It ruled that police must justify arrests under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC with written reasons, and must issue a notice under Section 41A CrPC in cases where arrest is not immediately necessary. Furthermore, Magistrates must not authorize detention unless they are satisfied, after judicial scrutiny, that the arrest was lawful and necessary.
The Court warned that any violation of these directions by police officers or judicial magistrates could lead to departmental action and even contempt of court proceedings.
This judgment not only strengthened procedural safeguards in matrimonial disputes but also became a cornerstone ruling governing all arrests where the punishment is less than or up to seven years, notably advancing the cause of civil liberties in India.
Case Title: Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujarat
In Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Supreme Court dealt with the criminal prosecution of a Rajya Sabha MP, Imran Pratapgarhi, who was booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 57, 3(5) for reciting and sharing a poem through a social media video.
The poem, posted on the platform ‘X’, was alleged to incite communal disharmony and hatred. The complaint claimed it provoked enmity and hurt religious sentiments, though the poem itself broadly addressed injustice and called for non-violent resistance.
The Court thoroughly analyzed the poem’s content and held that it did not refer to any religion, caste, or community, nor did it advocate violence or enmity. Instead, the poem expressed dissent and sacrifice in the face of oppression, aligning with principles of non-violence and democratic protest.
The Court emphasized the importance of Article 19(1)(a), the right to free speech and reiterated that criticism of governance or expression of unpopular views is protected in a constitutional democracy.
It ruled that none of the alleged offences were made out on the face of the complaint, and that the police failed to conduct the mandatory preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS before registering the FIR in a speech-related matter.
The Supreme Court condemned the mechanical registration of FIRs in such cases and reminded both police and courts of their duty to uphold constitutional freedoms, warning that failure to do so undermines the rule of law.
The FIR was quashed, reinforcing that artistic or political expression cannot be criminalized merely because it offends or unsettles some.
Case Title: Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujarat
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1545 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
READ CIRCULATION HERE
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
