Defamatory Posts On Social Media Amount To "Cyber Defamation" U/S 499 IPC, Law Making It 'Cognizable' Offence Will Be Effective: Kerala HC

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that even excluding the Facebook posts, the petitioner is liable under Section 509 (insulting modesty of woman) of the IPC and Section 120 (o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order through anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail, messenger ) of the KP Act for sending two defamatory postcards to the father of the de facto complainant.

Observing the lacunae in legislation to deal with defamatory Facebook posts, Justice A Badharudeen observed that Section 499 IPC is a non-cognizable offence and emphasized the need for an exhaustive law that makes such offences cognizable, accompanied by stringent punishments.

“No doubt, Section 499 of IPC would apply to defamation through Facebook and social media platforms which would come under the caption “cyber defamation”, since it is provided under Section 499 of IPC that whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read , or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person , is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person as an offence inclusive of explanations 1 to 4 therein, subject to exceptions one to ten provided therein.”

Background

The sole accused is the petitioner who has approached the Court to quash the final report against him.

The prosecution allegation is that in October 2023, the petitioner who had previous animosity with the de facto complainant published videos, scripts and messages with the intention of insulting her modesty. It is also alleged that the petitioner sent two postcards to the father of the de facto complainant, claiming that his daughter had become pregnant twice and had undergone two abortions. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner posted their pictures on Facebook to defame her.

Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 509 of IPC and under Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act.

The Counsel for petitioner relying upon Fr Geevarghese John @ Subin John v State of Kerala (2023) sought for quashing proceedings under Section 120 of the KP Act. In that case, the Court while quashing proceedings held that defamatory posts continues to appear on Facebook and stated that if punishments are to be imposed, then nearly all posts made on Facebook would need to be declared as an offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

Findings

Referring to Raveendran V.K v. State of Kerala & Another (2022), it was held that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Section 120 (o) of the KP Act for sending defamatory allegations through postcards to the father of the de facto complainant. The Court went on to state that the postcards sent to the father would make out an offence punishable under Section 509 of the IPC, as they contained remarks intended to insult the modesty of the de facto complainant publicly.

The Court said, “Therefore, posting 2 postcards with derogative statements by itself is sufficient to attract offence punishable under Sections 509 of IPC as well as 120 of the K.P Act.”

The Court observed that the single judge in Fr Geevarghese John (supra) stated that legislature must come out with an exhaustive legislation to deal with defamatory statements, posts made on Facebook and other social media platforms. The Court said, “the learned Single Judge vigilantly not specifically observed anything to hold that IPC offence would not attract when defamatory statements being posted through social media or for cyber defamation.”

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that prima facie offences were made out since postcards contained insulting allegations. It also noted that the petitioner published videos, scripts, and messages with the intention of insulting the modesty of the de facto complainant.

The Court thus declined to quash the proceedings when there are prima facie materials warranting trial. As such, the case was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates M.Devesh, M.Anuroop, Murshid Ali M.

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 5999 OF 2024

Case Title: Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583

Click here to Read/Download Order