Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, in Sameer M.D. v. State of Karnataka (Crl. P. No. 3565/2026), dealt with a significant issue at the intersection of digital expression, criminal law, and public order. The case arose from criminal proceedings initiated against Sameer M.D., a YouTuber who runs the “Dootha” YouTube channel, in relation to a video he published concerning the alleged Dharmasthala mass burial case. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him, which invoked serious provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including allegations of spreading false information, provoking public unrest, and making statements conducive to public mischief. The matter came before a Single Judge Bench presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who, after hearing preliminary submissions, ordered an interim stay on further investigation and directed the State to file its objections after reviewing the impugned video. The case highlights the evolving legal challenges posed by digital content creators who engage in investigative or commentary-based reporting on sensitive issues, particularly where such content intersects with ongoing controversies and public sentiments. It also raises important questions regarding the limits of free speech, the role of digital media in public discourse, and the extent to which criminal law can be invoked to regulate such expression.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Akshatha Shetty K, argued that the criminal proceedings against the YouTuber were unjustified and amounted to an infringement of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was submitted that the petitioner had merely undertaken an independent inquiry into the Dharmasthala burial allegations and had presented his findings to his audience in a manner consistent with journalistic and investigative practices.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the issue of alleged mass burials in Dharmasthala was already in the public domain and had been widely covered by both State and national media agencies. In such circumstances, it was contended that the petitioner’s video did not introduce any new or inflammatory narrative but was part of a broader public discourse on a matter of significant concern.

It was further argued that the FIR was based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations that failed to meet the threshold required for invoking criminal liability. The provisions cited in the FIR—Sections 240, 192, and 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—require specific intent to mislead, provoke, or incite public disorder. According to the petitioner, no such intent could be attributed to his actions, as the video was intended to inform and engage viewers rather than to create unrest.

The petitioner also contended that the registration of multiple cases against him for similar content indicated a pattern of harassment and misuse of the criminal justice system. It was submitted that subjecting a content creator to repeated criminal proceedings for expressing views on a public issue would have a chilling effect on free speech and discourage independent journalism.

Additionally, the petitioner denied any wrongdoing in the creation of visual content, asserting that any illustrative material used in the video was intended to convey the seriousness of the issue and was not meant to mislead or offend. The counsel urged the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or corresponding provisions under the new regime) to quash the FIR and prevent abuse of the process of law.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

The State, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the petition and defended the registration of the FIR. It was submitted that the petitioner’s video went beyond permissible limits of free speech and ventured into the realm of misinformation and provocation.

The State contended that the petitioner had used artificial intelligence (AI) to create graphic visuals depicting bodies allegedly subjected to sexual assault and burial in Dharmasthala. Such content, it was argued, was not only misleading but also capable of inciting fear, outrage, and communal disharmony among viewers.

The Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner had multiple cases registered against him, indicating a pattern of behavior that could not be dismissed as isolated or inadvertent. It was alleged that his videos had created ill will and hatred within the community, thereby posing a threat to public order.

The State emphasized that the provisions invoked in the FIR were applicable in the present case, as the petitioner’s actions amounted to giving false information regarding an offence, provoking the public with intent to cause unrest, and making statements conducive to public mischief. It was argued that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and that the truth or falsity of the allegations could only be determined through a thorough inquiry.

The State also cautioned against granting blanket protection to digital content creators under the guise of free speech, particularly when their content has the potential to disrupt social harmony. It was submitted that the Court should allow the investigation to proceed so that all relevant facts could be brought on record.

Judgment of the Court:

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after considering the submissions of both parties, adopted a balanced approach that sought to protect the rights of the petitioner while also allowing the State an opportunity to present its case.

At the outset, the Court issued notice to the State and directed the Additional Special Public Prosecutor to accept the same and file objections after reviewing the impugned video. Recognizing the importance of examining the actual content in question, the Court indicated that a proper assessment of the allegations could not be made without considering the video itself.

In the interim, the Court ordered a stay on further investigation in the matter, thereby providing temporary relief to the petitioner. This direction effectively halted any coercive action against the petitioner until the next date of hearing, which was fixed for further consideration.

During the course of the hearing, the Court made notable oral observations reflecting its concern over the prolongation of such proceedings. It remarked that the matter “should completely get closed” and advised against unnecessarily dragging the proceedings. These observations suggest that the Court was mindful of the potential for misuse of criminal law in cases involving expression and was inclined towards ensuring that such matters are resolved expeditiously.

The Court’s decision to stay the investigation at this stage indicates a prima facie recognition of the need to protect the petitioner from undue harassment while the legality of the FIR is being examined. At the same time, by directing the State to file its objections, the Court ensured that the principles of natural justice are upheld and that both sides are given a fair opportunity to present their case.

It is also relevant to note that this was not the first instance where the High Court had intervened in proceedings against the petitioner. In an earlier case involving similar allegations, the Court had granted a temporary stay on further proceedings, indicating a pattern of judicial scrutiny in matters involving the petitioner’s content.

The present order, though interim in nature, underscores the Court’s role in balancing competing interests—namely, the right to freedom of expression and the need to maintain public order. It also highlights the challenges faced by courts in dealing with cases arising from digital platforms, where the lines between information, opinion, and provocation can often be blurred.