Social Media Misuse And Criminal Liability
1. Introduction: Social Media Misuse and Criminal Liability
Social media misuse refers to the use of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and YouTube to commit acts that are illegal or harmful. Such misuse can include:
Defamation or libel
Hate speech or communal incitement
Cyberstalking and harassment
Publishing obscene or sexually explicit content
Spreading false information or rumors
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 499 & 500: Criminal defamation
Section 295A: Deliberate insult to religious beliefs
Section 503 & 507: Criminal intimidation
Section 354D: Stalking
Section 509: Word/gesture intended to insult modesty
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
Section 66A (struck down in 2015 by Shreya Singhal case): Criminalized offensive online messages
Section 66E: Violation of privacy
Section 67: Publishing obscene material
Section 69: Authority to intercept and monitor
Other Relevant Laws:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for sexual exploitation
Prevention of Money Laundering Act if financial fraud is committed online
2. Principles of Criminal Liability on Social Media
Publication to Third Parties: Liability arises when content is accessible to others.
Intent or Knowledge: Mens rea matters, especially in defamation, harassment, or incitement.
Public Order Considerations: Posting content that can disturb public order can attract IPC sections like 153A.
Intermediary Liability: Platforms may be liable if they fail to follow IT Act guidelines.
3. Landmark Case Laws
(1) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 – Freedom of Speech vs Offensive Content
Facts:
Section 66A of IT Act criminalized “offensive” online posts.
Held:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, violating Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech).
Observed that intermediaries cannot be punished for user-generated content unless notified.
Significance:
Clarified limits of criminal liability for online expression and protected freedom of speech online.
(2) S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600 – Online Morality Debate
Facts:
Actress Khushboo faced online backlash for allegedly obscene remarks on social media.
Held:
Supreme Court held that mere expression of opinion, if not obscene or provocative, is protected speech.
Significance:
Defined scope of online liability for offensive remarks and differentiated opinion from criminal conduct.
(3) State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003) – Publishing False Information
Facts:
Messages circulated online alleging misconduct by individuals and businesses.
Held:
Court held that publishing false information that harms reputation constitutes criminal defamation under IPC.
Significance:
Extended traditional defamation principles to social media and digital platforms.
(4) State v. Shailendra Singh (2018) – Online Stalking and Harassment
Facts:
Accused repeatedly harassed victim through Facebook messages.
Held:
Court convicted under IPC Section 354D (stalking) and IT Act Section 66A equivalent charges).
Observed that persistent harassment online is criminally punishable.
Significance:
Established online harassment as a cognizable offense.
(5) Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Congress Leaders (2016) – Political Defamation via Social Media
Facts:
Alleged false posts on Twitter and WhatsApp against a political leader.
Held:
Court allowed criminal defamation proceedings under IPC Sections 499 and 500.
Emphasized that public figures are protected from malicious false statements online.
Significance:
Confirmed applicability of criminal defamation to social media posts.
(6) Shashi v. Union of India (2019) – Hate Speech on Social Media
Facts:
Offensive posts targeting a community were shared widely online.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Section 153A (promoting enmity) and 295A (insulting religion).
Significance:
Demonstrates that social media cannot be a platform for hate speech or communal incitement.
4. Key Observations from Case Laws
| Principle | Observation |
|---|---|
| Freedom vs Liability | Free speech online is protected but does not include defamatory, obscene, or harmful content |
| Public Figures | Malicious false statements against public figures attract criminal defamation |
| Stalking & Harassment | Persistent online harassment constitutes criminal offense |
| Hate Speech | Posting content inciting enmity or insulting religion is punishable |
| Intermediary Role | Platforms are generally not liable unless non-compliant with IT rules |
5. Modern Challenges in Social Media Liability
Anonymity – Identifying perpetrators can be difficult.
Viral Spread – Harm multiplies quickly online, requiring fast investigation.
Cross-Border Jurisdiction – Posts may originate from other countries.
Balancing Free Speech and Criminal Liability – Courts rely on intent, context, and public interest.
6. Conclusion
Social media misuse is actionable under IPC, IT Act, and other statutes.
Criminal liability arises from defamation, harassment, stalking, obscenity, and hate speech.
Landmark cases like Shreya Singhal, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Congress Leaders, Shailendra Singh, and Shashi v. Union of India guide the courts in balancing freedom of expression and protecting individuals from harm online.
Enforcement relies on a combination of judicial intervention, cybercrime units, and intermediary compliance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments