ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT WARNS MAGISTRATES OF CONTEMPT FOR UNLAWFUL REMAND IN SOCIAL MEDIA CASES; STRESSES COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES:

In a significant move aimed at safeguarding individual rights and preventing misuse of criminal law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has issued a stern directive to all judicial magistrates across the state. The High Court has explicitly instructed that magistrates must strictly adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar judgment, particularly in cases involving arrests and remand proceedings related to social media posts. Any violation of this directive, the Court warned, would attract contempt proceedings and departmental action.

This directive was issued through a circular dated July 5, 2025, signed by the Registrar General of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The circular was prompted by growing concerns that several magistrates were mechanically remanding individuals accused in social media-related cases without evaluating the legal requirements as mandated by the apex court. The circular pointedly noted that it had come to the attention of the High Court that a majority of judicial magistrates were ordering the remand of accused persons in such cases without properly applying the principles laid down in the Arnesh Kumar decision.

The 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgment by the Supreme Court was a pivotal ruling designed to curtail unnecessary arrests and mechanical remand orders. It emphasized that arrests should not be made routinely and that magistrates must scrutinize the necessity of custodial interrogation before authorizing remand, especially for offences carrying punishment of less than seven years. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in its circular, reinforced that these safeguards are particularly vital in cases where individuals are booked for expressing views on social media platforms.

In addition to Arnesh Kumar, the High Court also invoked the recent Supreme Court ruling in Imran Pratap Gadhi v. State of Gujarat, which reiterates the importance of protecting free speech. In that case, the Supreme Court held that before registering a First Information Report (FIR) for offences involving speech, writing, or artistic expression—which carry punishments between three and seven years—police must conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Furthermore, such an inquiry must be preceded by approval from a Deputy Superintendent of Police and completed within 14 days. The High Court emphasized that these procedural safeguards must also be respected during the remand stage.

Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed that judicial magistrates must ensure that the investigating officer has complied with the law as laid down in both the Arnesh Kumar and Imran Pratap Gadhi rulings before passing remand orders. Specifically, magistrates must be satisfied that the accused has committed repeated or multiple offences, that there is a real risk of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, or that custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary.

The circular concluded with a strong warning: any judicial magistrate who fails to comply with these directives would be deemed to have violated the High Court’s orders and could face contempt proceedings and disciplinary action. The High Court underscored the seriousness of this issue and urged all magistrates to follow the instructions scrupulously, reaffirming the judiciary’s responsibility in upholding constitutional freedoms and ensuring due process.