According to a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court, simply expressing approval for a lewd post on Facebook or X (formerly Twitter) does not qualify as a crime as per Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
Mohd Imran Kazi of Agra was charged with posting disparaging remarks on social media and the court was considering a request to have the case dismissed. The posts, according to the police, were the reason behind the gathering of between 600–700 members of the Muslim community.
The Court ruled that sharing or retweeting such a post could result in legal ramifications under Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act as it would be deemed “transmission.” Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal elaborated that simply having an appreciation for offensive material does not equate to disseminating or sharing the same.
The order read, “A post or message can be said to be published when it is posted, and a post or message can be said to be transmitted when it is shared or retweeted. Liking a post will not amount to publishing or transmitting the post, therefore, merely liking a post will not attract Section 67 IT Act.”
The statements were made by the judge upon the quashing of the criminal proceedings that were ongoing against Mohd Imran Kazi of Agra which were brought under the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the IT Act. He highlighted, “I do not find any material which could connect the applicant with any objectionable post, as there is no offensive post available in the Facebook and WhatsApp accounts of the applicant. Therefore, no case is made out against the applicant.”
He acknowledged that it is illegal to pass on offensive material under the IT Act, however, he continued that in this particular case, “The applicant has liked the post of one Farhan Usman for unlawful assembly, but liking a post will not amount to publishing or transmitting the post, therefore, merely liking a post will not attract section 67 IT Act. Even otherwise section 67 of the IT Act is for obscene material and not for provocative material.”
The accused’s attorney claimed that there was insufficient evidence against him to prove he had broken any laws. The Investigating Officer reacted by citing a reportedly insulting post that the complainant liked. The Court looked into the clause since Section 67 of the IT was mentioned in the case. It was determined that this provision only applies when someone publishes, transmits or orders the distribution or dissemination of any information in electronic form that has the potential to corrupt and deprave those who read, view or hear it.
However, the Court reasoned that only liking a post would not be considered as publishing or transmitting it and therefore would not fall under Section 67 of the IT Act or any other criminal offence. Furthermore, it noted that Section 67 of the IT Act specifically addresses obscene content and does not encompass material considered merely “provocative.”
The court declared, “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.”
The accused was found to have no substantial connection to any offensive post, per the Court which concluded that there was no case against him and halted the proceedings against him. The petitioner was represented by lawyer Jai Raj and the State was represented by counsel Rajeev Kumar Singh.
Petitioner Mohd Imran Kazmi was prosecuted and a formal accusation was lodged against him for expressing approval of “inciting” content on social media. This action led to the gathering of approximately 600-700 individuals from the Muslim community, who organised a procession without the necessary authorization. On 30 June of this year, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court in Agra acknowledged the charge sheet and issued a non-bailable warrant against him.
