The technological age has produced digital platforms – not like the railway platforms where trains were regulated on arrival and departure. These digital platforms can be imminently uncontrollable at times and carry their own challenges. One form of digital platforms are the intermediaries that claim to be providing a platform for exchange of ideas without any contribution of their own. It is their say that they are not responsible for all that transpires on their platform; though on complaints being made, they do remove offensive content based on their internal guidelines. The power and potentiality of these intermediaries is vast, running across borders. These are multinational corporations with large wealth and influence at their command. By the very reason of the platform they provide, their influence extends over populations across borders. Facebook is one such corporation. (Ajit Mohan & Ors. Vs Legislative Assembly National Capital Territory Of Delhi & Ors. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1088 OF 2020; Supreme Court of India).
Social media has become part and parcel of our daily life and most of the people are somehow remain engaged in social media, share their feelings, pictures and others. We also share our opinion on different issues – that may be political or otherwise. Now we should know our legal responsibilities attached to those posts.
In this article, I will try to analyze different case laws through which we can derive an idea of our responsibilities attached to social media posts.
In the case of Manik Taneja & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Anr (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2015 decided on 20.01.2015) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.
In Patricia Mukhim vs The State of Meghalaya (Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2021 decided on 25.03.2021) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the question that arises for our consideration is whether the Facebook post dated 04.07.2020 was intentionally made for promoting class/community hatred and has the tendency to provoke enmity between two communities. A close scrutiny of the Facebook post would indicate that the agony of the Appellant was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals youngsters. The Appellant referred to the attacks on non- tribals in 1979. At the most, the Facebook post can be understood to highlight the discrimination against non- tribals in the State of Meghalaya. However, the Appellant made it clear that criminal elements have no community and immediate action has to be taken against persons who had indulged in the brutal attack on non-tribal youngsters playing basketball. The Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya. In our understanding, there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred. As there is no attempt made by the Appellant to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1) (c) have not been made out. Where allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
In a case, (Neetu Yadav vs Sachin Yadav TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.455 OF 2020 decided on 30.09.2020) the allegations of the petitioner claimed affinity of the other side with state Judiciary based on a Facebook Post while the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “ ... that the entire family of the petitioner is “influentially associated with the judicial structure of Madhya Pradesh”; that the petitioner’s mother retired from a senior Administrative position from the District judiciary; that the petitioner's mother has very good family relations with the judicial officers who worked in the district; that the petitioner's mother is still closely associated with the “Unionised Cadre of District Court and their Cooperative Societies”; that several officials of the Indore Court used to visit her home for each and every small function in their family; that due to the managerial skill of the petitioner's mother and her influence, the petitioner managed to have the first notice in the divorce petition returned unserved; that the petitioner’s brother is a distinguished lawyer practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Subordinate Courts for more than twelve years; that the petitioner’s brother has friendly relationship with the judicial officers of the District Court, as can be evident from his Facebook page; that the petitioner’s brother is an associate of one Mr. Sunil Choudhary who was the President of the District Bar Association, Indore: that he is politically well connected and has connection with the sitting member of the Parliament who was also a Judicial Officer (retired); that the petitioner’s brother is an active member of the Indore Bar Association and is a close friend of many leaders of the Bar; that the petitioner’s younger brother is working in the Information Technology Department, Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and that, therefore, it is not possible for the respondent to get justice through free and fair hearing.”
“… To prove his contention regarding the status of the petitioner’s family and the influence that they allegedly have, the respondent has filed print outs of a few pages from the Facebook account of the petitioner’s brother. While one of those print outs has photographs taken on the occasion of a cricket tournament held under the aegis of Indore Bar Association and another print out relates to the greetings extended to the Ex¬President of Indore Bar Association, the print outs of all other Facebook pages contain nothing other than the photographs of the petitioner’s brother with comments revolving around some joyous occasions.
I do not know how the pictures taken on the occasion of a cricket tournament conducted by a Bar Association and witnessed by a few judicial officers can be an indication of the influence exerted by the petitioner’s family on the entire district judiciary, merely because the judicial officers and Advocates have stood shoulder to shoulder on that occasion. It was not a private event but an event open to all lawyers of the District Bar. The fact that the petitioner’s brother who is a lawyer, has a Facebook page and that the same has lot of followers and that it attracts a lot of comments and likes cannot be the basis to conclude that the petitioner’s brother is very influential with the local judiciary.”
In Md. Sarfaraj vs The State of Bihar (Criminal Misc Case No. 67182 of 2022) the Hon’ble Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused who allegedly made derogative statement in Facebook against the Hindu Goddess and case was registered under section 153(A)/295(A) of IPC read with section 66 of the Information Technology Act.
Conclusion: With the passing of days, cases on Cyber Crime is on sharp rising graph in India along with the rest of the world. The more cases will be registered, the analysis of the different provisions of Cyber Laws will come up. But till now, it can be safely stated that post in social media though may create sentimental issues in the mind of standalone person or a group or otherwise, it enjoys the protection of freedom of speech and expression ensured by the Constitution of India.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.