High Court has directed that guidelines be issued to all police stations in Karnataka requiring strict compliance with Supreme Court judgments on arrest safeguards.

The Karnataka High Court has strongly criticised the Whitefield Police (in Bengaluru) over the manner in which a man was taken into custody in connection with a Facebook post celebrating the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra’s proposed show, holding that the police action appeared contrary to the law governing arrest and Section 35(3) notices.

“What is all this? you can't take the liberty of citizens for granted just because you are in a uniform. You may escape anybody's eyes, but when it comes to the eyes of the court you cannot escape. The police itself are to be policed now. What a state!” the Court orally said.

The Court further remarked: "The uniform that an ordinary man would wear to become a policeman cannot by itself confer immunity from constitutional discipline. Every coercive power of the police carries within it a corresponding obligation to exercise that power fairly, reasonably, and for the purpose for which it is conferred. The police must exercise restraint in certain cases, if not all. The police power is not a charter for police absolutism, as is done in the case at hand".

Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG&IG) to issue guidelines to all police stations in Karnataka requiring strict compliance with Supreme Court judgments on arrest safeguards.

The Court further directed that officers violating the law could face departmental inquiry and exemplary costs.

What was the case about?

Petitioner Mohan Gowda, a leader of Hindu Rashtra Samanvaya Samithi, had submitted a representation to Whitefield Police Station concerning comedian Kunal Kamra's proposed comedy show at Uru, Whitefield.

The show was subsequently cancelled, following which Gowda posted on Facebook that the cancellation was a "victory for Hindu unity". The post became the basis for police action as it invoked Sections 217 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court noted that there was no person claiming to be directly aggrieved by the post. Instead, a police constable at Whitefield Police Station treated the post as raising concerns of communal disharmony.

Thereafter, Gowda was brought from Udupi to Bengaluru. In fact, a Whitefield police constable traveled to Udupi at around 2 a.m., brought Gowda to the Whitefield Police Station and made him sit there. A notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was allegedly served only after he had been secured and brought near the police station.

The notice issued on August 5/6 required him to appear before police three days later. Yet, the Court noted, he had already been taken into custody. It observed: "A notice indicating the later date of appearance, appears to have been used to take the petitioner into custody 3 days prior to the fixed date itself ".

The Court had earlier said Whitefield Police Station appeared to be violating the law “time and again.”

‘What was the urgency?’

During the hearing today, the Court questioned why police had gone to Udupi when the notice itself gave Gowda three days to appear. The Judge asked: " When giving the 35(3) notice...You told him to come after three days...what was the urgency in the meantime? "

When the police suggested that Gowda had voluntarily agreed to come to the station, the Court responded: " Is this even believable, sir? Who will volunteer to say ‘Yes, I want to go to the police station’? That holy place ."

The Court stressed that it was not protecting an accused from lawful investigation. It said that if a person failed to appear on the date specified in the notice, police could take lawful action, but not before that:

‘Police power is not a charter for police absolutism’

The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions including D.K. Basu and Satender Kumar Antil, and on the Telangana High Court's decision in Nallabalu v. State of Telangana, which had subsequently received the Supreme Court's approval.

The Court held that once the Section 35(3) procedure is invoked, police must follow it. Custody may be resorted to if the noticee does not cooperate with investigation, but the procedure cannot simply be bypassed.

In strong terms, the Court observed: " The police power is not a charter for police absolutism, as is done in the case at hand ."

It further held: " In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the police are not a law unto themselves; they are as much subject to the Constitution and the commands of law as the citizen against whom they act ."

The Court added: " Power to arrest cannot become an instrument of oppression, and authority to enforce the law be employed to circumvent the law itself ."

The Judge also told the police officers present: “"A uniform doesn't give you the license to act however you want. We are governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. "

The Court directed the officers to convey to the DG&IG that the directions should be implemented “forthwith”, observing that Supreme Court judgments were being violated.

The Judge also remarked: “Name change: Whitefield Police Station to Darkfield Police Station.”

Earlier, the Court had similarly warned: “You can't take the liberty of citizens for granted just because you are in a uniform.” It then said: “This has become...the police itself are to be policed now. What a state!”

DG&IG directed to issue statewide guidelines

The Court has directed the DG&IG to issue a circular, government order or guidelines to all police stations requiring compliance with the Supreme Court's law on arrest safeguards.

The guidelines must also make clear that officers violating the law may face departmental inquiry, apart from exemplary costs when such violations come before constitutional courts.

The Court said: “those who would violate the law would not be let off the hook but will be brought to books.”

The Court's concern was not confined to the present case. It noted that the conduct of personnel attached to Whitefield Police Station had been the subject of several proceedings before the High Court and coordinate Benches.

The DG&IG has been directed to report compliance regarding the statewide guidelines on September 25, 2026. The officers who appeared before the Court have also been directed to remain present.

The interim order staying the proceedings has been extended, and the matter will next be heard on September 25 at 2:30 p.m.

Case Title : Mohan Gowda v State of Karnataka

Tags: