Digital Threats To Public Order
๐ What Are Digital Threats to Public Order?
Digital threats to public order refer to actions, communications, or content spread through digital or online platforms that can:
Incite violence,
Promote hate speech,
Spread misinformation,
Disrupt communal harmony,
Undermine national security or social stability.
In India, public order is a constitutional limitation on the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(2).
Common forms of digital threats:
Social media hate campaigns
Online radicalization and extremist content
Fake news and misinformation
Cyberbullying leading to mob violence
Deepfakes and doctored videos inciting riots
๐งโโ๏ธ Relevant Legal Provisions
Constitutional:
Article 19(1)(a) โ Freedom of speech and expression
Article 19(2) โ Reasonable restrictions including public order
Statutory:
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 153A โ Promoting enmity between groups
Section 295A โ Outraging religious feelings
Section 505 โ Statements conducing to public mischief
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66F โ Cyber terrorism
Section 69 โ Interception and monitoring by government
โ๏ธ Key Case Laws on Digital Threats to Public Order
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Topic: Free speech vs. online abuse and public order
Facts: Section 66A of the IT Act criminalized "offensive" messages online; challenged after arrests for social media posts.
Judgment: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
Public Order Angle: Court clarified that only speech inciting imminent violence or disorder can be restricted under public order.
Significance: Reinforced that not all online speech threatening discomfort equals public disorder.
2. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)
Topic: Hate speech in digital broadcasting
Facts: Devgan made derogatory remarks against a religious figure on a TV show that went viral online, causing protests.
Judgment: Supreme Court refused to quash multiple FIRs; noted that hate speech can disturb public order even in digital form.
Significance: Set boundaries for digital speech that may incite violence or communal disharmony.
3. Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
Topic: Mob violence incited via digital platforms
Facts: Petitions highlighting how WhatsApp rumors were leading to lynchings across India.
Judgment: Supreme Court ordered both Centre and States to take preventive, remedial, and punitive measures.
Public Order Element: Recognized the role of digital misinformation in directly disturbing public peace.
Significance: Led to WhatsApp implementing limits on forwards and government forming fact-checking units.
4. Re: Prajwala Case (2015โ2018)
Topic: Circulation of rape and assault videos
Facts: NGO Prajwala submitted pen drive with sexual assault videos widely shared on social media and messaging apps.
Judgment: Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance, asked platforms to create proactive monitoring mechanisms.
Public Order Concern: Viral sharing of such content can lead to moral panic, outrage, and community tensions.
Significance: Digital content moderation seen as essential to public order.
5. Faisal Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)
Topic: Facebook posts and religious incitement
Facts: Faisal Khan accused of posting communal content on Facebook, sparking local protests.
Judgment: Allahabad HC observed that online speech must be carefully examined for intent and impact on public order.
Significance: Not every offensive post amounts to public disorder, but court upheld FIR based on prima facie communal threat.
6. Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2021)
Topic: Online criticism of judiciary
Facts: Comedian Kunal Kamra posted tweets critical of the Supreme Courtโs decisions.
Judgment: Though contempt proceedings were initiated, SC emphasized tolerance to criticism unless it incited public unrest.
Significance: Shows courts distinguish between criticism and incitement in the digital domain.
7. Re: Internet Shutdowns in Kashmir โ Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
Topic: Internet restrictions and public order
Facts: Internet shutdown imposed in Jammu & Kashmir after abrogation of Article 370.
Judgment: SC ruled that access to the internet is part of freedom of expression, but restrictions are valid if proportional and justified under public order.
Significance: Recognized that digital communication is a double-edged swordโessential for rights, but also a potential threat.
๐ Summary Table
| Case | Core Issue | Judgment | Public Order Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shreya Singhal | Section 66A and free speech | Struck down | Clarified threshold for online speech to be penalized |
| Amish Devgan | Hate speech via digital media | FIRs upheld | Digital speech can disturb communal peace |
| Tehseen Poonawalla | Mob lynchings from digital rumors | Preventive orders | Digital misinformation can provoke real-world violence |
| Prajwala Case | Viral sexual violence content | Monitoring ordered | Harmful content threatens societal stability |
| Faisal Khan Case | Facebook communal posts | FIR upheld | Online speech with intent to incite can be restricted |
| Kunal Kamra Case | Criticism of judiciary | Tolerance emphasized | Criticism โ disorder unless incitement involved |
| Anuradha Bhasin | Internet shutdown | Restrictions upheld with safeguards | Recognized both rights and risks of digital platforms |
๐ฎ The Road Ahead: Legal Challenges and Future Regulation
Balancing Act: Courts will continue balancing digital freedoms with public order concerns.
Content Moderation Laws: Future laws may introduce more co-regulatory frameworks involving social media platforms.
AI and Deepfakes: New forms of digital threats will need new laws, especially in elections or communal contexts.
Digital Vigilantism: Increased penalties for public shaming and online calls for violence.
Standardized Protocols for Fact-Checking: To prevent riots or panic induced by fake content.
Faster Adjudication Mechanisms: Special cyber benches or magistrates to handle public order-related digital offences.
โ Conclusion
Digital threats to public order are real, immediate, and evolving. Courts have recognized that while the internet empowers democracy, it can also destabilize society when misused. The future of maintaining public order will depend on:
Strong but fair laws
Proactive platform policies
Constitutionally guided policing
Informed citizen awareness
RELATED Blog
0 comments