The FIR against Amit Malviya over his May 2025 X post on Rahul Gandhi no longer stands: the Karnataka High Court has quashed it, and the Court’s reasons will be known only from the detailed order.
Bengaluru: Proceedings that began with an FIR in May 2025 over a post on X by former BJP IT Cell convenor Amit Malviya, about Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, have ended in the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the criminal case on Friday [Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka and Another].
The petition was allowed by Justice M Nagaprasanna. Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam and advocate Suyog Herele E appeared for Malviya, and State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadesh appeared for the State. The case number was not available at the time of writing, and the detailed order had not been uploaded, so the Court’s reasoning is not yet known.
What quashing does, and what it does not
A quashing petition under the High Court’s inherent powers asks the Court to end a criminal case before trial on the footing that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, no offence is made out or the proceedings are an abuse of process. Quashing ends the investigation and any prosecution under that FIR; it does not amount to a finding on the truth of the post or on the complainant’s contentions. Until the detailed order is uploaded, no inference should be drawn on either.
The FIR and the post
Congress functionary Sridhar MM lodged the complaint on which the FIR was registered on May 20, 2025, alleging that the post was false, malicious and provocative. The FIR invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 192, which deals with provocation with intent to cause a riot. These are allegations in a complaint and were never tested at a trial.
Malviya had made the post the same day, May 20, 2025. It carried an image that combined one half of Rahul Gandhi’s face with the other half of the face of Pakistan’s Army chief, and criticised Gandhi’s remarks on Operation Sindoor. The complainant treated it as an attempt to provoke public disorder against the Congress leader; the content of the post is not reproduced here.
The interim stay of May 22, 2025
Justice S Rachaiah stayed the case two days after the FIR. The interim order recorded that, prima facie, the allegations against Malviya did not attract the offence under Section 352 of the BNS (intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace). That was an interim view taken on the basis of the FIR and the arguments of the day, and it did not decide the petition.
What each side contended
Malviya argued that the post was political speech and criticism on a matter of public interest, and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The complainant’s case was that the post was false and provocative and that it justified a criminal investigation. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the case altogether; how it dealt with these contentions will be clear from the detailed order.
A second quashing in one day
This order closes one of several criminal cases arising from political speech on social media in Karnataka, and it follows the quashing of a separate FIR against Malviya and Arnab Goswami earlier on the same day. The High Court has been called upon repeatedly to draw the line between sharp political criticism and speech that attracts criminal law. The detailed order, once available, will show whether the Court rested its decision on the ingredients of the offences, on the political nature of the post, or on both.
Case Title: Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka and Another
Bench: Justice M Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam and advocate Suyog Herele E for the petitioner; State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadesh for the State