Criminal Liability For Misuse Of Social Networking Sites
🔹 1. Introduction: Misuse of Social Networking Sites
Social networking sites (SNS) like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn have become integral to communication. However, their misuse can lead to criminal liability.
Common types of misuse:
Cyberstalking and harassment – sending threatening or obscene messages.
Defamation – posting false or damaging statements about someone.
Identity theft / impersonation – creating fake profiles to defraud or harm.
Obscene content and pornography – sharing or uploading offensive material.
Cyberbullying – targeting minors or vulnerable individuals.
Trolling or incitement – provoking violence, hate speech, or communal tension.
Applicable Indian laws:
IT Act, 2000:
Section 66C: Identity theft
Section 66D: Cheating by impersonation
Section 66E: Privacy violation
Section 67: Publishing obscene material
Section 67A & 67B: Child pornography and sexually explicit content
IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860):
Section 499/500: Defamation
Section 354D: Stalking
Section 503: Criminal intimidation
Section 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
🔹 2. Evidentiary Challenges
Attribution of posts or messages – Identifying the actual user behind an account.
Cross-border servers – Data may be stored outside India.
Deletion or modification of content – Digital evidence is volatile.
Authentication – Proving content originates from accused.
Intent – Establishing criminal intent in online communications.
Preservation of evidence – Social media content can disappear quickly; Section 65B of the Evidence Act is key.
🔹 3. Case Law Analysis
🧑⚖️ Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act (arrest for offensive social media posts).
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for being unconstitutional, citing freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Court emphasized the need for clear standards for online liability, separating offensive posts from criminal abuse.
Key Takeaway:
Mere offensive content is not enough for criminal liability; intention and harm are critical.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2009)
Facts:
Accused posted defamatory material on a blog against a public figure.
Judgment:
Court upheld IPC §499/500 defamation provisions online.
Social media posts are equivalent to publications under IPC; posting defamatory content online attracts criminal liability.
Key Takeaway:
Defamation laws extend fully to SNS posts and blogs.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: State v. S. Jeyakumar (Kerala, 2012)
Facts:
Accused created a fake Facebook profile to harass a woman.
Judgment:
Court convicted under IT Act §66D (impersonation) and IPC §354D (stalking).
Forensic evidence from the social media platform (IP address and login logs) was crucial.
Key Takeaway:
Impersonation and cyberstalking are punishable crimes; SNS logs are admissible as evidence under Section 65B.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Facts:
Digital evidence (emails and social media messages) presented in forgery and cheating case.
Judgment:
Supreme Court clarified that electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B of Evidence Act to be admissible.
Highlighted importance of authenticity and certification of social media content.
Key Takeaway:
Proper preservation and certification of SNS evidence is essential in criminal cases.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: Sabu v. State of Kerala (2010)
Facts:
Accused posted obscene images and videos on social networking platforms.
Judgment:
Convicted under IT Act §67 and IPC §292 for publishing obscene material.
Court held that social media platforms are channels for publication, and misuse can attract criminal liability.
Key Takeaway:
Sharing obscene or sexually explicit content online is punishable under Indian law.
🧑⚖️ Case 6: Smita Singh v. Union of India (2019)
Facts:
Accused harassed and threatened minor through Instagram and WhatsApp.
Judgment:
Court convicted under IPC §§354D (stalking), 503 (criminal intimidation) and IT Act §66C.
Forensic evidence included message timestamps, screenshots, and metadata from SNS providers.
Key Takeaway:
Harassment of minors on SNS is a serious criminal offense under IPC and IT Act.
🧑⚖️ Case 7: Cyber Crime Case Against Fake Twitter Account (Delhi, 2017)
Facts:
Fake Twitter account created in a public official’s name to spread false information.
Judgment:
Court convicted accused under IT Act §66D (cheating by impersonation) and IPC §505 (statement causing public mischief).
SNS account logs and IP addresses were used to establish identity and intent.
Key Takeaway:
Impersonation and spreading false information on SNS can attract criminal liability.
🔹 4. Key Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Criminal Liability | Posting defamatory, obscene, threatening, or fraudulent content on SNS is punishable. |
| Identity & Impersonation | Creating fake accounts or stealing identities attracts IT Act §66C/D and IPC §419. |
| Evidence Preservation | Social media evidence must comply with Section 65B Evidence Act. |
| Intention & Harm | Liability depends on intent, impact, and public harm. |
| Stalking & Harassment | Persistent online harassment constitutes cyberstalking under IPC §354D. |
| Cross-border Challenges | Cooperation with platforms and proper legal requests needed for evidence. |
🔹 5. Conclusion
Misuse of social networking sites can attract significant criminal liability, including:
Cyberstalking, harassment, and intimidation
Defamation and fraud
Obscene or sexually explicit content
Impersonation and identity theft
Successful prosecution requires:
Proper collection of digital evidence (screenshots, IP logs, server records)
Compliance with Section 65B of Evidence Act
Demonstration of intention and harm
Corroboration with victim statements and forensic logs
RELATED Blog
comments