In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that live-streaming police action on social media does not amount to obstructing a public servant in the discharge of their duties. The court quashed criminal proceedings against a driver who had been booked under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for going live on Facebook during a traffic stop.
Case Background:
The case, titled Sita Ram Sharma vs State of HP & Anr (Cr.MMO No. 363 of 2023), arose from an incident on August 24, 2019. Sita Ram Sharma, the petitioner, was allegedly driving without a seatbelt when police officers on traffic duty signaled him to stop. According to the police, Sharma did not immediately comply and was later found parked near an eatery. When asked to produce vehicle documents, Sharma allegedly misbehaved and went live on Facebook, stating he was being unfairly targeted.
Legal Issues:
The primary issue before the court was whether Sharma’s actions, particularly his Facebook live stream, constituted an offense under Section 186 IPC, which penalizes voluntary obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of public functions.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Sandeep Sharma, in his judgment delivered on June 19, 2024, quashed the proceedings against Sharma. The court made several important observations:
1. Interpretation of “Obstruction”:
The court held that “obstruction” under Section 186 IPC requires more than mere passive conduct. Justice Sharma observed: “Any action accompanied by either show of force or threat or having the effect of obstructing the public servant from carrying out his duty, would constitute ‘obstruction’ for the purpose of Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code”.
2. Live-streaming Not Obstruction:
The court specifically ruled that going live on Facebook and making comments does not amount to obstruction. It stated: “Precise allegation in the case at hand against the petitioner is that he went live on Facebook and made certain comments, but certainly, such act, if any, of him, cannot be considered obstruction, if any, caused by the petitioner”.
3. Lack of Physical Obstruction:
The judgment emphasized that there was no allegation of physical obstruction: “Once there is no allegation that accused used a physical force to cause any obstruction to the Police official, who admittedly after having noticed certain non-compliances on the part of the accused-petitioner, challaned him under Sections 177 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no case under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, could have been initiated against the petitioner”.
4. Intent of the Facebook Post:
The court interpreted Sharma’s social media activity charitably, noting: “Rather, by making post, petitioner attempted to state that he is being unnecessarily harassed”.
Also Read
Legal Representation:
Advocate Neeraj Sharma appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate Generals Rajan Kahol and BC Verma, along with Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan, represented the State.
