Karnataka DGP Issues Strict Section 35 BNSS Compliance Circular Following High Court Rebuke on Illegal Arrests

Karnataka DGP Issues Strict Section 35 BNSS Compliance Circular After High Court Rebuke on Illegal Arrests

The Karnataka Director General of Police issued strict compliance circulars on September 19 and in September 2026 following a High Court judgment that found Whitefield Police Station violated the Supreme High Court of India's established precedent on arrest procedures. The court described the police station's conduct as a 'blatant infraction' and warned officers they face personal liability for breaching mandatory notice requirements under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS).

The case centred on Hindu activist Mohan Gowda, who filed a writ petition challenging the registration of an FIR and his arrest in connection with social media posts celebrating the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra's show at Whitefield. Gowda alleged that a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was served only after he had been brought within a few yards of the police station—a procedural violation the High Court found particularly troubling given established judicial precedent.

Violation of Supreme Court Precedent

The Karnataka High Court specifically referenced decisions in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu, which establish clear guidelines for arrest procedures. These cases, decided by the Supreme Court of India, mandate that arresting officers must serve notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS before or immediately upon arrest, not after reaching the police station.

Section 35(3) of the BNSS requires that when a police officer arrests a person without warrant, the officer must inform the arrested person of the grounds for arrest and of any right to bail. This notice must be given at the time of arrest or as soon as practicable thereafter. The Supreme Court has consistently held that serving such notice only after bringing an arrestee to the police station constitutes a serious procedural violation that undermines constitutional protections afforded to arrested persons.

The High Court's description of Whitefield Police Station's actions as a 'blatant infraction' indicates the severity with which the bench viewed the deviation from settled law. Police stations cannot treat procedural safeguards as administrative formalities to be completed after the fact. These protections form part of the arrest process itself and must be observed from the moment detention begins.

DGP's Response and Personal Liability Warning

In response to the judgment, the Karnataka DGP issued comprehensive circulars that go beyond merely restating the law. The circulars explicitly warn police officers of personal liability for non-compliance with Section 35(3) requirements. This escalates accountability by shifting potential consequences from the state to individual officers who fail to follow proper procedure.

Personal liability means officers who violate these requirements may face civil or criminal consequences, disciplinary action, or both. The DGP's decision to emphasise personal liability reflects the High Court's clear disapproval and the need to ensure compliance across all police stations in Karnataka. By making individual officers aware that they bear personal responsibility for procedural violations, the circular creates a direct incentive for compliance that goes beyond institutional oversight.

The circulars address not only Section 35(3) but the broader framework of arrest procedures under the BNSS. This suggests the DGP's office identified systemic issues in how arrests are conducted and processed across police stations in the state. The emphasis on strict compliance indicates that previous guidance or training may have been inadequate or inconsistently applied.

Police Practice and Procedural Safeguards

The Mohan Gowda case illustrates a recurring problem in criminal procedure: the gap between law as written and law as practised. Police stations often treat procedural safeguards as secondary to the act of arrest itself. Officers may prioritise bringing a suspect to the station and then completing paperwork, including notice requirements, as a matter of administrative convenience. The High Court's judgment and the DGP's response signal that this approach is no longer acceptable in Karnataka.

The timing of the circulars, issued in September 2026 shortly after the judgment, suggests urgency. The DGP's office clearly recognised that immediate reinforcement of the law was necessary to prevent further violations. Circulars issued directly by the DGP carry significant weight within police hierarchies and are typically communicated to all stations for implementation.

Compliance with Section 35(3) serves fundamental constitutional purposes. The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest and rights to bail ensures that detained persons understand why they are being held and know their legal options. It also creates a documentary record that can later be examined to determine whether the arrest was lawful and properly conducted. When police defer this notice until after reaching the station, they deprive the arrestee of meaningful opportunity to exercise rights and create ambiguity about when the arrest actually occurred.

Context of Recent High Court Scrutiny

The Mohan Gowda judgment reflects broader scrutiny by the Karnataka High Court of police conduct in recent months. The court has issued multiple orders questioning the misuse of criminal law for purposes it was not intended to serve. In a separate judgment, the court quashed an FIR registered against Venkappa Gowda over a WhatsApp status, holding that the statement did not disclose any intention to incite violence and that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of legal process.

The court has also held that police cannot be used as 'recovery agents' to settle civil disputes. In a ruling on a hospital management case, the High Court held that giving a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute amounts to an abuse of the legal process. These decisions collectively demonstrate the court's commitment to ensuring that criminal law and police machinery are not misused.

The DGP's circulars on Section 35(3) compliance must be understood within this context. The High Court is signalling that procedural violations in arrests will not be tolerated, and the police leadership is responding by reinforcing compliance requirements and establishing personal accountability. When visitors enter the Supreme Court of India display board area or any police facility, they encounter reminders of the constitutional framework that governs arrest procedures—a framework the Karnataka High Court is now actively enforcing.