Jahanvi Agarwal
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court clarified that the mere act of liking an explicit post on social media platforms like Facebook or X (formerly Twitter) does not constitute an offense under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
The Court emphasized that sharing or retweeting such content would be considered a form of “transmission” under Section 67 of the IT Act, making it liable for legal consequences.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal expounded on the distinction by explaining that merely liking a post does not equate to publishing or transmitting the material. To elaborate, a post is considered published when it is originally posted, while it is viewed as transmitted when shared or retweeted. Consequently, the act of liking a post does not amount to publishing or transmitting it, and thus, does not fall under the purview of Section 67 of the IT Act.
The case revolved around a petitioner accused of posting provocative content on social media that allegedly led to a gathering of around 600-700 individuals from the Muslim community. The accused’s counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish his guilt. In response, the Investigating Officer relied on the fact that the petitioner had liked an allegedly offensive post.
Upon examining the provisions of Section 67 of the IT Act, the Court concluded that this section applies specifically to the publication or transmission of material in electronic form that tends to deprave and corrupt its audience. Consequently, the Court held that merely liking a post did not constitute publishing or transmitting it, and thus, did not warrant action under Section 67 of the IT Act or any other criminal charges.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 67 of the IT Act pertains to obscene material rather than provocative content. Specifically, the Court highlighted that the words “lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest” in the provision relating to sexual interest and desire, and therefore, Section 67 of the IT Act does not address provocative material.
Given the lack of evidence connecting the accused with any objectionable post, the Court ruled that no case could be established against him and subsequently quashed the proceedings.
Case Name: Mohd Imran Kazi v. State of UP
Diary Number: 31091/2023
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal