The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 22-year-old student over an allegedly offensive Instagram post made following the death of Kannada actor Puneeth Rajkumar, taking into account the possible impact of the case on the student’s future prospects.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj extended leniency to the petitioner while cautioning him against posting similar content in the future. The court also directed his counsel to advise him appropriately.
At the same time, the High Court observed that the words used by the student, when considered in their context, would attract Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. It noted that Puneeth Rajkumar was opposed to alcohol consumption by younger persons and that the post had appeared immediately after the actor’s death.
The student had allegedly uploaded a derogatory post on Instagram featuring a beer bottle after Puneeth Rajkumar died in October 2021. The post went viral, following which social media users tagged the Bengaluru city police. The student was subsequently arrested, and the police booked him on November 1, 2021, for offences under the Information Technology Act.
Court Stresses Timing And Context Of Social Media Posts
The High Court said that a statement posted on social media could not be examined in isolation and that its timing and surrounding circumstances were also relevant.
The court observed that it was unfortunate that such a post had been uploaded immediately after the death of a well-respected actor. It further noted that the post had caused concern among members of the public and affected peace and harmony, which formed the background to the registration of the offence.
During the hearing, the bench also questioned whether access to social media could justify putting up such a post after the actor’s death.
Student’s Future Prospects Considered
While deciding to terminate the proceedings, Justice Govindaraj considered the petitioner’s background and the consequences that continuation of the criminal case could have on his education and future.
The court noted that the petitioner was not a resident of India, had recently come to the country and was pursuing a Bachelor of Economics degree at a good university. It concluded that continuing the proceedings could adversely affect his future prospects and that leniency should therefore be shown.
The petitioner is presently studying at a reputed university in Haryana.
Petitioner Argued Post Was In Bad Taste But Not Obscene
Counsel for the student had sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the Instagram post, at its highest, could be described as being in bad taste but did not contain obscene or sexually explicit material capable of attracting Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
The defence also submitted that the petitioner was born and brought up in London and did not understand the consequences that could follow from his social media post. It was further argued that the pending criminal proceedings were adversely affecting his future while he pursued his university education.
The High Court nevertheless found that the language used, viewed in its particular context, would fall within the offence under Section 67, while ultimately deciding to show leniency and quash the proceedings.
Following Puneeth Rajkumar’s death, Bengaluru police had also prohibited alcohol sales for a couple of days as a precautionary measure aimed at preventing untoward incidents in the city.
