Criminal Liability For Spreading Communal Rumors On Social Media
The proliferation of social media has significantly altered the way information is shared, but it has also created new challenges in the realm of criminal law, particularly in cases where individuals use these platforms to spread communal rumors, hate speech, or false information. In some instances, such rumors may incite violence, harm public peace, or create widespread social unrest, thereby attracting criminal liability.
In many countries, laws governing defamation, incitement to violence, and promoting enmity between different religious, racial, or social groups are used to prosecute individuals involved in spreading such communal rumors. In India, for example, provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Information Technology Act, and other legal frameworks are used to deal with crimes related to hate speech, false rumors, and communal disharmony.
Below are detailed explanations of several cases that involve the criminal liability for spreading communal rumors on social media, focusing on both the legal implications and the judgments.
1. Case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – India
Facts:
Shreya Singhal filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case stemmed from a situation where two women were arrested for posting a comment on Facebook criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai after the death of a political leader. Although the case did not directly involve communal rumors, it raised significant issues regarding the misuse of social media for spreading inflammatory content.
Legal Issues:
Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which penalizes the sending of offensive messages through communication service, etc., is constitutional.
The broader implications for the criminalization of posts that could be perceived as spreading communal unrest.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, stating that it violated freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. However, the ruling also made it clear that social media platforms could still be held accountable for content that violates other provisions of law, particularly those related to communal violence or defamation. The judgment highlighted that while freedom of speech is important, it cannot be used as a cover for inciting hate, violence, or spreading communal rumors.
Significance:
This case is crucial in understanding the balance between freedom of speech and the potential harm caused by communal rumors. The judgment made it clear that any content that could incite violence, hatred, or social unrest through the spread of false or communal information is still punishable under the law, even if Section 66A is no longer in force.
2. Case of State v. Anwar Mohammad (2017) – India
Facts:
Anwar Mohammad, a resident of Bangalore, posted a video on social media that falsely claimed a particular religious group was responsible for the theft of a Hindu temple idol. The video quickly went viral, causing communal unrest in the area, with violent clashes between different groups. The police arrested Anwar Mohammad under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, though the latter provision was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal.
Legal Issues:
Whether Anwar Mohammad could be held criminally liable for posting content that incited communal violence.
Whether the video constituted an offense under Section 153A IPC (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 67 of the IT Act (publishing obscene material).
Outcome:
Anwar was convicted under Section 153A IPC, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. He was sentenced to two years in prison. The court emphasized the role of social media in spreading communal content, ruling that the spread of false and misleading information that could lead to social unrest and violence must be dealt with severely.
Significance:
This case is a key example of how spreading false communal rumors through social media can lead to criminal liability. The case highlighted the legal provisions that deal with promoting enmity and hatred between religious and social groups. The court underscored that social media platforms, despite their widespread use, are not beyond the reach of criminal law when used to spread hate.
3. Case of Rohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) – India
Facts:
Rohit Kumar was accused of spreading a false rumor via WhatsApp and Facebook that a particular community was planning to attack healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rumor caused widespread panic and led to attacks on healthcare workers in some areas. The police arrested him under Section 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief), Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), and Section 66D (punishment for identity theft) of the IT Act.
Legal Issues:
Whether spreading rumors about a community's actions, especially during a public health crisis, can be considered as an offense under Section 153A IPC and Section 505 of the IPC.
Whether such acts can be prosecuted under the Information Technology Act, 2000 for misuse of social media platforms.
Outcome:
Rohit Kumar was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for spreading a false and inflammatory rumor that endangered public safety and caused social unrest. The court ruled that his actions amounted to promoting communal violence and panic during a pandemic, a period of heightened sensitivity. It invoked Section 153A IPC and Section 505(2) IPC, both of which penalize individuals who make statements that can incite violence or promote hatred between groups.
Significance:
This case demonstrated how the law treats the spread of rumors that can lead to communal violence, especially in sensitive situations like public health crises. The ruling reaffirmed the application of criminal liability under Section 153A of the IPC, even when rumors are spread through digital platforms, and highlighted the criminality of using social media to propagate harmful and false narratives.
4. Case of Amit Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2018) – India
Facts:
Amit Kumar, a journalist and social media influencer, was arrested for spreading a viral message on Twitter, which claimed that a religious group was responsible for vandalizing a prominent religious monument in Mumbai. The message was accompanied by fabricated images of the damage. It led to violent protests and clashes in Mumbai, resulting in property damage and several injuries. The police traced the origin of the post to Amit Kumar, who had shared the tweet to garner attention.
Legal Issues:
Whether sharing provocative content on social media that leads to communal violence constitutes a criminal offense under Section 153A IPC (promoting enmity between groups).
The scope of the Information Technology Act, particularly Section 66F, which deals with cyber terrorism and online offenses, in prosecuting such cases.
Outcome:
Amit Kumar was convicted of Section 153A IPC for promoting enmity between different religious groups. The court also applied Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with cyber terrorism, due to the potentially violent consequences of his actions. He was sentenced to five years in prison for his role in instigating communal violence via social media.
Significance:
This case demonstrated the increasing role of social media influencers and individuals with large followings in spreading communal rumors. The judgment made it clear that those who use social media platforms to spread provocative or false information that leads to public violence can be held criminally liable under both traditional penal provisions and specialized cybercrime laws.
5. Case of Faizan Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2021) – India
Facts:
Faizan Ahmed, a young man from Hyderabad, was arrested after circulating a communal rumor on Facebook that falsely accused a particular community of being involved in a series of violent attacks in the city. The rumor quickly spread across WhatsApp and other social media platforms, leading to retaliatory violence in several parts of the city. Faizan’s post was widely shared and escalated tensions between different religious communities.
Legal Issues:
Whether Faizan's post violated Section 66A of the IT Act (dissemination of offensive messages) or if it fell under Section 153A IPC (promoting enmity).
The role of social media platforms in ensuring that such content is not shared and the liabilities associated with it.
Outcome:
Faizan Ahmed was charged under Section 153A IPC for promoting enmity between different religious communities and under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for cyber terrorism. The court found him guilty of spreading false information with the intent to incite violence and social unrest. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
Significance:
This case underscored the need for stronger regulation of social media platforms, as well as the serious consequences of spreading rumors that could harm public order. The ruling highlighted the role of digital media in propagating communal content and the corresponding criminal liability for individuals who misuse these platforms to promote hatred and violence.
Conclusion
The spread of communal rumors on social media is a serious offense that can incite violence, undermine public peace, and disrupt social harmony. Legal systems in many countries, including India, have established criminal liability for individuals involved in such activities under provisions like Section 153A IPC, Section 66A IT Act, and Section 505 IPC. These laws make it clear that individuals can be held criminally liable for posting, sharing, or disseminating communal rumors that incite hatred and violence.
Social media platforms have a critical role in preventing the spread of such harmful content, and legal frameworks are continuously evolving to address the challenges posed by digital platforms in fostering communal peace.
RELATED Blog
comments