Social Media Misconduct And Criminal Liability
I. Introduction: Social Media Misconduct and Criminal Liability
Social media misconduct refers to actions on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, or YouTube that violate laws, harm individuals, or threaten public order.
With the increasing use of digital platforms, certain behaviors have acquired criminal liability, including:
Cyberstalking and harassment
Defamation
Threats of violence or intimidation
Hate speech
Spreading false information or rumors
II. Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 499 & 500 – Defamation
Section 503 & 506 – Criminal intimidation
Section 292, 293 – Obscenity
Section 504, 505 – Promoting enmity and public mischief
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66A – Sending offensive messages (struck down in 2015 but still cited in older cases)
Section 66C – Identity theft
Section 66D – Cheating by impersonation
Section 67, 67A, 67B – Publishing obscene material
Other Provisions
Cyberstalking laws, criminal conspiracy, and copyright violations.
Court can issue interim reliefs like blocking posts, accounts, or websites.
III. Common Types of Social Media Misconduct
Cyberbullying and harassment – targeting an individual with repeated threatening or humiliating messages.
Defamation – publishing false statements to harm reputation.
Hate speech and communal incitement – posts that promote violence or hostility.
Obscene content – sharing pornographic material involving adults or minors.
Fraud and impersonation – using someone’s identity to deceive others.
Misinformation/rumors – spreading false information causing public panic or loss.
IV. Landmark Cases
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Challenge against Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages online.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Held that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is paramount; however, acts threatening or defaming others are still punishable under IPC.
Significance:
Clarified limits of criminal liability for online content.
Distinguished offensive speech from criminal threats or harassment.
2. S. J. Mary v. Superintendent of Police (2016, Kerala High Court)
Facts:
A person uploaded intimate pictures of a woman without consent on social media.
Judgment:
Convicted under IPC Sections 66E (violation of privacy), 354C (voyeurism), and 509 (insulting modesty).
Court ordered removal of content and compensation.
Significance:
Set precedent for criminal liability for privacy violations on social media.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. N. P. Rao (2018)
Facts:
Accused posted derogatory messages about a public figure, leading to harassment.
Judgment:
Convicted under IPC Sections 499, 500 (defamation) and 503, 506 (criminal intimidation).
Court held online posts are equivalent to published defamatory statements in law.
Significance:
Reinforced that social media defamation carries same criminal consequences as traditional media.
4. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2019, Jammu & Kashmir Case)
Facts:
During internet shutdown, social media was used to spread false rumors about law and order, creating panic.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that spreading fake information on social media with intent to cause panic or unrest can attract criminal liability under IPC Section 505(1)(b).
Significance:
Highlighted that misinformation causing public disorder is punishable.
5. Vijayalakshmi v. State (2020, Madras High Court)
Facts:
Accused created fake social media profiles to defame and harass a business competitor.
Judgment:
Convicted under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 500 (defamation), and IT Act Section 66D (identity fraud).
Court imposed compensation and prison term.
Significance:
Demonstrated combined use of IPC and IT Act provisions for social media offenses.
6. Facebook and Hate Speech Cases – Mohammad Zubair Case (2022)
Facts:
Accused posted content considered offensive to religious communities on Twitter.
Judgment:
Investigation initiated under IPC Sections 295A (deliberate insult to religion), 153A (promoting enmity), and IT Act.
Court examined the intent to harm communal harmony.
Significance:
Social media conduct leading to communal tension attracts criminal accountability.
7. Shafi v. State of Kerala (2021)
Facts:
Cyberstalking and harassment of a woman through social media messages.
Judgment:
Convicted under IPC Sections 354D (stalking), 509 (insulting modesty), and IT Act 66A (historical reference).
Emphasized that continuous harassment online is a serious criminal offense.
Significance:
Reinforced the protection of women from online harassment under criminal law.
V. Key Principles Derived from Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Online speech can be criminal | Social media posts causing harm, harassment, or defamation attract IPC/IT Act penalties | Shreya Singhal, State of Maharashtra v. Rao |
| Privacy violations are punishable | Uploading intimate images without consent is criminal | S. J. Mary v. SP |
| Misinformation causing public panic | Fake posts can be prosecuted | Anuradha Bhasin |
| Hate speech online is punishable | Content promoting communal disharmony attracts liability | Mohammad Zubair Case |
| Cyberstalking & harassment | Persistent online harassment can lead to imprisonment | Shafi v. State, Vijayalakshmi v. State |
| Combined use of IPC & IT Act | Many social media offenses require applying both acts | Vijayalakshmi v. State, S. J. Mary |
VI. Best Practices for Handling Social Media Misconduct
Prompt complaint registration – FIR under IPC or IT Act.
Preserve evidence – screenshots, messages, emails, IP addresses.
Investigative collaboration – cybercrime units, social media companies.
Interim reliefs – blocking posts, accounts, or removing content.
Legal consequences – imprisonment, fines, or compensation to victims.
VII. Conclusion
Social media misconduct encompasses harassment, defamation, privacy violations, hate speech, and misinformation.
The legal framework combines IPC provisions and IT Act sections to address emerging online crimes.
Landmark cases like Shreya Singhal, S. J. Mary, State of Maharashtra v. Rao, and Anuradha Bhasin show that courts recognize the serious criminal consequences of online misconduct.
Effective investigation requires digital evidence collection, preserving cyber traces, and timely legal intervention.
RELATED Blog
0 comments