Hyderabad: In the span of two days, the Telangana High Court made two distinct, contradictory rulings over when criticism of politicians or public leaders on WhatsApp counted as a criminal offence.
While the High Court allowed a criminal revision and halted proceedings in one case, it refused to quash legal actions in another.
Refuses to dismiss criminal proceedings
In the first case, the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man who allegedly shared objectionable messages against Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders, specifically targeting a party member.
The single-judge bench of Justice Tirumala Devi Eada held that the allegations made against the petitioner prima facie justify a trial and legal proceedings against him and cannot be dismissed at this early stage.
“In the present case, the petitioner has shared a message on the WhatsApp group, which is a prominent social media and thus, the petitioner is not justified in posting objectionable messages in the WhatsApp group,” Justice Eada said.
Also ReadStop colleges from holding student certificates: Telangana HC to govt
The petitioner-cum-accused was the admin of the WhatsApp group named “Marikal,” who reportedly added an unknown number to the chat. The BRS member, the de facto complainant, alleged that the petitioner devised a plan to damage his political career by mobilising the Muslim community against him and accusing the party leaders of being “land grabbers and gamblers.”
Such messages, according to him, could provoke political groups and disturb communal harmony.
The petitioner opposed the charges, arguing that the messages were shared in the interest of the public and fell under freedom of speech. He added that Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) was not applicable.
The court in this case noted that since the prima facie allegations supported the claimed offences, a full trial is required. The petitioner cannot avoid the charges by merely disputing the contents and impact of the messages, it said.
Also ReadHeavy fines for illegal construction petitions: Telangana HC
WhatsApp is a mode of communication with known persons and one should behave with a sense of responsibility while communicating something to others, the court said.
The complainant said the messages amount to offences under sections 504, 505(2)(statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes), 153 A (Promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Allows revision, quashes criminal proceedings
In a strikingly similar case, the High Court allowed the criminal revision and stopped the proceedings against an accused booked for making defamatory and insulting statements against a minister.
A single-judge bench of Justice K Sujana held that continuing the proceedings would constitute an “abuse of the process of law,” noting that the material provided by the prosecution did not sufficiently support the alleged offences.
“Mere expression of criticism, particularly in a private social media group, would not by itself constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged unless the prosecution establishes the essential elements required under the respective provisions of law,” Justice Sujana said.
The prosecution said insulting messages sent on the WhatsApp group, “Save Democracy,” accounted for offences under sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505(1)(b) (with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
The petitioner argued the same, that his comments, even if accepted in their entirety, did not constitute the alleged offences. They were merely political criticism covered under Article 19 (1)(a) (granting citizens the right to freely express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas) of the Constitution.
He described a minister as “rowdy” and claimed the representative was collecting “crores of rupees.”
The court found that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to support the charges, noting that the message was simply political criticism directed at a public representative. The evidence also failed to show that the petitioner intended to provoke a breach of the peace or cause alarm to any section of the public.
“There was no material to show that the petitioner had issued any threat causing alarm or injury to any person,” the bench added. It clarified that even if the allegations were assumed defamatory, it would be categorised as defamation, wherein the affected person has to initiate proceedings.
Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.
