Supreme Court Questions FIR registered over a social media post in Chhattisgarh and extends interim protection from coercive steps to the accused, Rupnarayan Ekka, till the next hearing on December 4.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) questioned the registration of an FIR against Rupnarayan Ekka over a social media post, with a Bench remarking that the police should focus on major cases, and extended until the next hearing its earlier order that no coercive steps be taken against him. The matter will be heard next on December 4 [Rupnarayan Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh].
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan heard Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner and counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh. The allegations in the FIR are untested, the Court has not examined them on merits, and the petitioner is presumed innocent.
How the case reached here
The FIR was registered at Kunkuri police station in Jashpur district under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and Section 353(2), which deals with statements promoting enmity or hatred between communities. According to the prosecution, the petitioner posted material on social media on April 13, 2025 that was derogatory to a community, on a complaint by the head of a community organisation. The content of the post is not reproduced here.
The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the petitioner’s first anticipatory bail application on merits on December 15, 2025. His second application, which disputed the first order’s finding that he committed the alleged offence after release on bail in another case, was rejected on July 3, 2026 on the ground that there was no substantial change in circumstances, and the High Court also relied on his alleged involvement in other similar cases. In September, the Supreme Court issued notice on his plea and directed that no coercive steps be taken against him, subject to cooperation with the investigation.
What was said in court
Justice Mahadevan asked what the FIR was for and urged the police to concentrate on major cases rather than matters of this kind. Mr Bhushan argued that the post did not amount to an offence and described the case as frivolous, saying the statement reflected the petitioner’s own view of history.
Justice Nagarathna said the Court had entertained the plea because of that frivolity, and remarked that people seemed to have a lot of time to waste. The State’s counsel, for its part, told the Bench that the petitioner had not appeared at the police station since the September notice. The Bench said he should be summoned, and the State said a notice requiring his appearance was being issued the same day.
Mr Bhushan also pointed out that the State had not filed a response to the anticipatory bail petition.
The order
The Bench adjourned the matter to December 4 and extended the interim protection until then. The question of whether the post discloses an offence under the cited provisions, and whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, remains open for decision.
Case Title: Rupnarayan Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner; counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh