"As Long As It Is Not Misused...": Bombay HC On Social Media Comments

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday, December 19, quashed and set aside an FIR lodged against a man who was booked for allegedly misusing the Facebook page of independent MLA Ravi Rana and posting “filthy and abusive” comments against Rana’s political opponents in April this year.

A division bench of Justices Sunil B Shukre and Mahendra W Chandwani also cautioned against the misuse of social media, while acknowledging that it has become a powerful medium for exchange of views.

India's democracy has progressed so much and tolerance to fair criticism, dissent, and satirical comments has become its hallmark, the bench added.

Moreover, commenting on the role of social media in democracy, the court said that it is only a pillar to democracy till it is not misused by posting content which constitutes an offence or falls under reasonable restrictions on free speech.

Court in its order observed that the social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc. today has become a powerful medium for exchange of views, expressing opinions, counter opinions, posting critical or satirical comments and thus has become one of the important pillars on which our democracy stands. But, the social media is so only till the point it is not misused by posting remarks, articles, etc., which by themselves constitute an offence or which do not fall within the prohibited zone created in terms of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

“One has to be careful when one expresses one's view or makes comments that the words used are not obscene or undignified or demeaning. In other words, a balance has to be struck between the need for healthy use of social media and the need for preventing misuse of social media,” a division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani mentioned.

While quashing an FIR against a 39-year-old man who allegedly hacked into the Facebook account of MLA Ravi Rana to post abusive comments, the court said that the fine balance of social media was upset in the present case.

The court however, took exception to the man's conduct and made the aforementioned remarks. The bench said that though offence is not made out in this case, it doesn't give "license to the applicant to revile Head of the State Government; to be bawdy about the Head".

The FIR was for offence under section 153A of the IPC (promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony).