Reported By: Salil Tiwari
Last Updated: October 21, 2023, 02:40 IST
The allegations towards the accused had been that he posted sure provocative messages on social media, which resulted within the meeting of about 600-700 individuals belonging to the Muslim neighborhood for arranging a procession with out permission, which brought about a critical menace to breach of peace. Representational picture
The accused had ‘favored’ a put up on Facebook which led to an enormous procession with out permission
The Allahabad High Court not too long ago noticed that merely ‘liking’ a put up on social media wouldn’t quantity to publishing or transmitting the put up and wouldn’t appeal to part 67 of the Information Technology Act.
Section 67 of the IT Act offers punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene materials in digital type.
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal was coping with an software filed beneath part 482 of CrPC to the proceedings in a case registered in 2019 towards accused Mohd Imran Kazi beneath sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, part 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and part 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The allegations towards the accused had been that he posted sure provocative messages on social media, which resulted within the meeting of about 600-700 individuals belonging to the Muslim neighborhood for arranging a procession with out permission, which brought about a critical menace to breach of peace.
The counsel for the accused contended that there was no materials towards him and even the report of the Cyber Crime Cell itself confirmed that no content material was discovered on the Facebook account of the accused.
However, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) referred to the Cyber Cell report, which said that although there was no content material within the Facebook account of the accused as a result of he had deleted it, the contents had been accessible on his WhatsApp and different social media platforms.
Moreover, the investigation officer, showing in individual, apprised the excessive courtroom that there was one put up of 1 Chaudhari Farhan Usman, which was ‘liked’ by the accused during which it was said that they’d assemble earlier than the collectorate at hand over a sure memorandum to the President of India.
The excessive courtroom referred to part 67 of the IT Act and stated that it’s for obscene materials and never for provocative materials.
“The words ‘lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest’ mean relating to sexual interest and desire, therefore, Section 67 I.T. Act does not prescribe any punishment for other provocative material,” it underscored.
Moreover, the courtroom stated that although there isn’t a direct judgment on the difficulty of whether or not ‘liking’ a put up will quantity to any offence or not, the Supreme Court within the judgment of Kaushal Kishor vs State of UP and others (2023), noticed that each citizen of India should consciously be restrained in speech, and train the fitting to freedom of speech and expression beneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution solely within the sense that it was meant by the framers of the Constitution, to be exercised.
Therefore, discovering no materials on document that might join the accused with any objectionable put up, the courtroom held that no case was made out towards him. Hence, it allowed the petition and quashed the case towards the accused.
