Criminal Liability For Social Media Misconduct
1. Introduction
Social media misconduct refers to any unlawful or unethical behavior committed using social networking platforms like Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. Misconduct on these platforms may include:
Defamation (criminal or civil)
Cyberbullying and harassment
Hate speech and incitement
Publication of obscene or morphed content
Breach of privacy / unauthorized data sharing
Spreading misinformation or fake news
Such acts can lead to criminal liability under various laws, especially under:
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Special Acts (like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012)
2. Legal Provisions Governing Social Media Misconduct
Under the IPC:
Section 153A – Promoting enmity between groups.
Section 295A – Deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Section 499 & 500 – Criminal defamation.
Section 506 – Criminal intimidation.
Section 509 – Insulting modesty of a woman.
Under the IT Act, 2000:
Section 66C – Identity theft.
Section 66D – Cheating by personation using computer resources.
Section 67 – Publishing or transmitting obscene material.
Section 67A – Sexually explicit content.
Section 69A – Power of government to block public access to information.
3. Important Case Laws
Let’s now examine five detailed cases that shaped criminal liability for social media misconduct.
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Two girls were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act for posting and liking a comment on Facebook that criticized the shutdown of Mumbai after Bal Thackeray’s death.
Issue:
Whether Section 66A of the IT Act violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision was vague and overly broad, leading to misuse and arbitrary arrests for online expressions.
Importance:
It laid down the boundaries of free speech on social media.
It emphasized that only speech that causes clear incitement or threat can attract criminal liability.
It protected online expression from misuse of penal laws.
Case 2: State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (Cyber Crime Case, 2004)
Facts:
The accused posted obscene messages and defamatory content about a woman on a Yahoo message group, creating a fake profile and publishing her personal details.
Law Applied:
Section 67 of the IT Act (obscenity)
Section 469, 509 IPC (forgery and insult to modesty)
Held:
The accused was convicted—the first conviction under the IT Act in India.
Importance:
Established precedent for criminal liability for obscene and defamatory online content.
Reinforced that online harassment is equally punishable as offline offenses.
Case 3: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 760
Facts:
A magazine published a cover image portraying cricketer M.S. Dhoni as Lord Vishnu holding various products. A private complaint alleged it hurt religious sentiments under Section 295A IPC.
Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, noting absence of deliberate or malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.
Importance:
Clarified that for social media posts or digital publications, intent is crucial.
Not all religiously sensitive or controversial depictions amount to criminal misconduct.
Case 4: Swami Ramdev v. Facebook Inc. (2019 SCC OnLine Del 10701)
Facts:
Swami Ramdev sought an injunction against defamatory videos uploaded on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter that criticized him based on a book banned by the court.
Held:
The Delhi High Court directed the platforms to take down defamatory content globally, not just in India.
Importance:
Established extraterritorial liability of social media platforms for illegal content.
Clarified that platforms cannot escape responsibility by limiting blocking to Indian domains.
Case 5: Ashneer Grover v. Twitter Inc. (2023 Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Ashneer Grover (former BharatPe MD) alleged defamation through fake Twitter handles and manipulated posts spreading false information.
Held:
The Court directed Twitter to reveal the identity of the anonymous handles and take down the defamatory posts.
Importance:
Strengthened the principle of traceability and accountability on social media.
Demonstrated how Indian courts apply defamation and IT Act principles to digital platforms.
4. Other Notable Cases (Brief Mentions)
Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2021):
Supreme Court discussed traceability of messages on WhatsApp for investigation of serious crimes.
TikTok Case (Madras High Court, 2019):
The app was temporarily banned due to obscene and harmful content endangering minors.
5. Key Takeaways
Social media conduct is not outside the scope of criminal law.
Mens rea (intention) plays a vital role — mere posting without malicious intent may not constitute an offense.
Platforms (like Facebook or X) can be compelled to cooperate with investigations.
Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2) of the Constitution).
Victims of online abuse have multiple legal remedies — criminal complaints, defamation suits, and blocking orders.
6. Conclusion
Criminal liability for social media misconduct has become a complex but essential area of modern criminal jurisprudence. The courts aim to balance free speech with protection from harm, ensuring accountability without suppressing legitimate expression. With increasing digitalization, stricter enforcement and awareness are crucial to maintaining ethical and lawful online behavior.
RELATED Blog
0 comments