Criminal Liability For Spreading Communal Hatred Through Social Media
1. Introduction: Criminal Liability for Spreading Communal Hatred via Social Media
With the rise of social media platforms, communal tension and hate speech have increasingly been spread online. Such acts can lead to riots, violence, and public disorder, making them criminal offenses in many countries.
Criminal liability arises under:
Domestic criminal law: Penal codes, IT laws, and anti-hate speech legislation
Constitutional provisions: Many constitutions prohibit speech that incites violence or discriminates based on religion, caste, or ethnicity
International human rights standards: Freedom of expression is limited where it threatens the rights of others
Key elements of liability:
Intent (Mens Rea): Knowledge or intention to incite hatred, violence, or discrimination.
Act (Actus Reus): Posting, sharing, or creating content that incites communal tension.
Public Impact: The content must have the potential to disturb public peace or provoke violence.
2. Statutory Framework (India as example)
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc.
Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings
Section 505(1)(b): Statements creating fear or alarm among the public
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A (struck down but historically relevant): Sending offensive messages online
Section 67: Publishing obscene material electronically
Section 69: Interception and monitoring of information for security purposes
3. Case Law Analysis
Here’s a detailed look at six landmark cases involving the spread of communal hatred through social media:
Case 1: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015, Supreme Court of India)
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages online.
Issue: Whether restriction on offensive online speech violated freedom of speech.
Holding: SC struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional but emphasized that speech intending to incite violence or communal hatred is not protected.
Significance: Clarified the line between free speech and incitement to communal hatred on social media.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B. Desai (2016)
Facts: Praful Desai shared inflammatory posts on Facebook targeting a religious community.
Issue: Whether sharing content online constitutes promoting enmity under Section 153A IPC.
Holding: Court held that online sharing of communal content is equivalent to publishing it publicly, making the offender criminally liable.
Significance: Expanded criminal liability to digital platforms, recognizing the reach of social media in spreading communal hatred.
Case 3: Mohammad Zubair Case (2020, India)
Facts: Mohammad Zubair was booked under IPC Section 295A for posting content that allegedly hurt religious sentiments on Twitter.
Issue: Whether intention to outrage religious feelings can be inferred from social media posts.
Holding: Court emphasized mens rea – deliberate intent is necessary for conviction. Mere offense without intention is insufficient.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that intent is key, even on social media platforms.
Case 4: Jahangir Alam vs. State of West Bengal (2019)
Facts: Jahangir Alam spread communal messages through WhatsApp, leading to clashes in a town.
Issue: Whether forwarding messages can attract criminal liability.
Holding: Court convicted him under Sections 153A and 505 IPC; emphasized that forwarding content with knowledge of its impact is punishable.
Significance: Clarified that amplifying communal hatred online is equivalent to creating it.
Case 5: M. S. Gill vs. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2018)
Facts: Posts on Facebook accused a religious community of anti-national activities, leading to public unrest.
Issue: Determining liability of administrators and creators of online content.
Holding: Both creators and admins were held liable under IPC 153A and 505 for inciting hatred and disorder.
Significance: Highlights the responsibility of platform operators and content creators in preventing communal spread.
Case 6: Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka (2017)
Facts: Ramesh posted derogatory memes targeting a religious community on social media.
Issue: Whether memes constitute criminal offense.
Holding: Court convicted under Section 295A IPC, noting that digital memes intended to provoke hatred can constitute an offense.
Significance: Established that digital formats like memes, videos, and posts are fully accountable under anti-hate laws.
4. Key Legal Principles from Case Law
Intent Matters: Deliberate incitement to hatred or violence is punishable.
Forwarding Content Can Be Criminal: Amplifying hate speech online carries liability.
Digital Platforms Are Covered: Social media posts, WhatsApp messages, memes, and videos fall under existing criminal law.
Public Impact Is Crucial: Liability arises when content has potential to disrupt communal harmony.
No Absolute Freedom of Speech: Constitutional rights are limited where public order and religious sentiments are threatened.
5. Conclusion
Spreading communal hatred through social media is criminally punishable because it undermines public order, national security, and social harmony. Courts consistently hold that:
Intent and public impact are key for criminal liability
Social media is treated as a public platform
Digital content, including forwards, memes, and posts, falls under anti-hate laws
Case law reinforces that ignorance, digital anonymity, or platform limitations do not exempt liability.
RELATED Blog
comments