High Court ends five-year-old IT Act case over a student's Instagram post after an actor's death
Bengaluru police booked a student in 2021 over an offensive Instagram story posted after a film actor's death. The Karnataka High Court quashed the case on 18 September 2026. It held the post, though vulgar, was not obscene under the IT Act and did not promote enmity between groups.
This page records what the cited court records and reports say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The proceedings in C.C. No. 3031/2022 stand quashed.
What happened
The High Court recorded that on a police sub-inspector's complaint, Subramanya Nagar Police registered Crime No. 159/2021 after an Instagram story showing a beer bottle with an offensive message was posted from the student's account after the actor's death in 2021.
The High Court held the expression, though vulgar and objectionable, was not material satisfying the ingredients of obscenity under Section 67 of the IT Act.
The High Court held that public offence or indignation is distinct from promoting enmity between groups, and that the material did not disclose any identifiable group against which enmity was promoted under Section 153A IPC.
The High Court quashed the proceedings pending before the XXXII ACJM, Bengaluru, while telling the petitioner that expression in the public domain carries a responsibility to exercise restraint.
What the record says
“The allegation that the post caused concern among members of the public or affected public sentiment cannot, without more, satisfy the ingredients of Section 153A IPC.”
Criminal Petition No. 3845 of 2025, Karnataka High Court, order dated 18.09.2026, para 19 — read the full text
Punished for a freedom
A student was prosecuted for five years over an offensive social-media post that the court found was neither obscene nor aimed at any group, with no allegation of violence or threats.
What we could not confirm
The court did not decide the disputed question of who uploaded the post. The post's wording is not reproduced here.