'Social Media Bully' Who Spreads False Information, Uses Vulgar Words Isn't A Social Activist, Distinct From Critic Of Govt: Andhra Pradesh HC

While considering a Public Interest Litigation plea on the alleged indiscriminate arrest of social media activists, the Andhra Pradesh High Court distinguished between a "critic of the government" who express themselves on social media and a "social media bully" who uses the platform to bully an individual, an officer or a person in authority by spreading false information or who uses vulgar language.

In doing so the court observed that such persons using the social media platforms cannot be called social media activists, and the platform does not give any immunity to a person from whatever is said on social media which otherwise constitutes an offence. Dismissing the PIL with Rs 50,000 cost, the court said that plea appeared to have been filed with "political motives".

The court made the observation while hearing a PIL petition filed by a journalist, highlighting the alleged indiscriminate arrest made by the police authorities, affecting the liberty of "social media activists in general". The plea alleged that the State machinery was being "misused by the police authorities" and the plea sought appropriate orders to restrain the arrests of social media activists, especially those who are "not aligned to the ecosystem of the present ruling party".

A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its November 13 order said, "A social media activist is one who can express his views on the social media, and that can only be done through an electronic device like a computer or an advanced phone. A critic of the Government, who expresses himself or herself on the social media, is a person who is fully aware of his rights and, therefore, a social media activist is a person, who is well informed and aware of what goes on in the society and has the capacity to criticize the acts of omission or commission of those in power or authority".

The court then said that failed to understand how a public interest litigation plea is maintainable in so far as this section of the society is concerned, who is well informed, who does not suffer any handicap on account of poverty or penury, and is well capable of challenging the action of the State if they feel that the same is not legally appropriate or was not warranted in law. This the court said after noting that a PIL is "meant to protect those who are unable to fight for themselves".

It thereafter said, "At this stage, we need to emphasize that there is certainly a distinction between a critic of the Government who expresses himself or herself on the social media and a social media bully, who uses the platform to bully an individual, an officer or a person in authority by spreading false information, maligning the character of a person or his family members by use of unparliamentary language which at times may be vulgar. The platform may also be used for spreading hatred amongst communities to bring about social unrest. The toxicity of such comments has a devastating effect on the law abiding citizens, who may suffer such a targeted attack as a well organized strategy".

The bench said that such persons using the social media platform "cannot be said in the least to be social media activists".

"A social media platform does not give any immunity to a person from whatever is said in the social media which otherwise constitutes an offense in law. On the other hand, such elements need to be dealt with in accordance with law especially those who are available as 'guns for hire'," it added.

The counsel for the petitioner had argued that the police authorities have been making arrests indiscriminately for malafide reasons only because they chose to criticize the functioning of the Government and their officers to intimidate those who do not support the current party in power. It was contended that action of the State and the police authorities is with a view to curtail the freedom of expression of journalists, which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

It was argued that there is a definite pattern adopted by the police authorities in trying to silence the criticism against the Government and false cases have been foisted on defenceless victims.

It was also contended that the persons who have been incarcerated, arrested or against whom criminal cases have been registered have resorted to the "legal remedies before the competent fora".The petitioner however contended that an inquiry is required into the functioning of the police authorities and further compensation be paid to those who have suffered at the hands of the State.

The court took note of the FIRs registered against certain individuals at various police stations under various provisions of the BNS as well as the Information Technology Act.

The court then said, "While the petitioner may proclaim himself to be a protector of the rights of his fraternity, that is journalists in general, some of whom may also be present on the social media, yet we have to see as to whether on the basis of facts contained in the petition and those urged before us during the course of arguments by the learned Senior Counsel, warrants exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India".

Enumerating on the purpose of Public interest litigation the bench said that it was a concept innovated by the courts with the view to protect the fundamental and other rights of the people who are unable to fight for such rights on account of the "existing social inequality, economic disadvantage or poverty".

"It was meant to protect those who are unable to fight for themselves, for example, bonded labourers, child labourers and labour in the unorganized sector, and prisoners," the court underscored.

It said that Courts have through various pronouncements repeatedly cautioned that litigation in the name of public interest is not permitted to be misused for purposes other than for which it was envisaged and conceived.

"When we test the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the legal principles discussed hereinabove, it can be seen that the present petition has been filed to espouse cause not of persons who are downtrodden, or belong to an economically weaker section of the society, who are incapable of approaching the Courts for protecting their rights or challenging the action of the State, rather, the petitioner seeks to espouse the cause of a community of social media activists as they are called, who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either marginalised or suffer an economic handicap, and cannot take resort to the remedies which are otherwise available to them in law," the court said.

Noting the petitioner's contention that the concerned individuals have resorted to appropriate remedies under law, the court, based on the material on record dismissed the PIL as misconceived and also imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the petitioner.

Case title: Pola Vijaya Babu v/s The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order