In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging police excesses against social media users, drawing a sharp line between genuine activism and the misuse of online platforms. The court observed that individuals spreading false information or inciting hatred cannot be considered “social media activists.”
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati ruled that the PIL lacked bona fide public interest and appeared politically motivated. The petitioner was also directed to pay ₹50,000 as costs to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority for aiding visually and hearing-impaired children.
Background of the Case
The PIL (W.P. (PIL) No. 187 of 2024) was filed by journalist Pola Vijaya Babu, who alleged that state police, under the influence of the ruling party, were targeting critics on social media through false FIRs and arrests. The petitioner claimed this was a deliberate attempt to curb dissent and stifle freedom of expression, a right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Citing multiple FIRs, including those registered under Sections 196, 298, and 353 of the IPC and provisions of the IT Act, the petitioner contended that these actions aimed to intimidate individuals critical of the government. The PIL sought judicial intervention to halt such arrests and demanded compensation for the affected individuals.
Legal Issues
The case revolved around key legal questions:
1. Freedom of Expression vs. Lawful Accountability: Whether criticizing the government on social media falls within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and the limits of this right when it involves spreading misinformation or inciting hatred.
2. Public Interest Litigation Scope: Whether the PIL served genuine public interest or was an attempt to misuse the judicial process for political motives.
3. Misuse of Social Media Platforms: The extent to which users of online platforms can be held accountable for toxic behavior or misinformation under existing laws.
The court referenced precedents, such as Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, to emphasize the judicial responsibility to discourage frivolous or politically motivated PILs.
Court’s Observations
The court expressed concerns over the misuse of social media platforms and public interest litigation. Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur made a pointed distinction between legitimate criticism and harmful misuse:
“A critic of the government, who expresses themselves on social media, is someone who is well-informed and aware of their rights. However, the platform cannot be used to spread false information, malign individuals, or incite hatred among communities. Users engaging in such toxic behavior cannot be called social media activists.”
The bench observed that public interest litigation is a powerful judicial tool but must be used with care. It is meant to protect the rights of those who are socially or economically disadvantaged, not well-informed social media users capable of pursuing legal remedies independently.
The judgment also noted the potential harm caused by social media bullies, emphasizing that platforms cannot serve as safe havens for spreading falsehoods, hatred, or vulgarity.
Court’s Decision
The bench dismissed the PIL, deeming it politically motivated and lacking merit. The court imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. The funds are to benefit children with visual or hearing impairments.
The court reiterated that while it stands as a protector of free speech, it cannot allow social media to be used for harmful purposes. It emphasized that individuals and groups attempting to misuse PILs for ulterior motives must face strict consequences.
