Mallanagowda Biradhar v. State
(2019) 5 Kant LJ 709 : (2019) 5 KCCR (SN 63) 70
In the High Court of Karnataka
Crl. Pet.  2745/2017
Before Justice Aravind Kumar
Decided on April 05, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of proceedings in a case involving Facebook comments criticising an article on Swami Vivekananda

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 500, 504, 505, 506)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The complainant wrote an article about Swami Vivekananda in the Prajavani newspaper.
• The appellant and the other accused posted comments criticising the article on Facebook.
• The complainant filed an FIR leading to the appellant’s arrest.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the comments were posted by another person in a Facebook group and that the appellant was not involved in posting them.
• The respondent’s counsel contended that they must establish this defence during the trial.

Opinion of the Bench

• The offences in the present case are non-cognisable. The police did not have the power to arrest the appellant without the permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.
• Moreover, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the appellant.

Aarya Tyagi, an undergraduate student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahemadabad, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2024.