Merely Liking A Social Media Post Doesn't Amount To Publishing Or Transmitting It: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that a post or message can be said to be 'published' when it is posted, and a post or message can be said to be transmitted when it is shared or retweeted.

The Court also noted that Section 67 relates to the sharing of obscene material and not to the sharing of other provocative material.

“The words 'lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest' mean relating to sexual interest and desire, therefore, Section 67 I.T. Act does not prescribe any punishment for other provocative material”, the bench clarified in its order.

With this, the single judge quashed a case against one Imran Khan, accused of liking an alleged 'provocative' message on social media, which allegedly resulted in the assembly of about 600-700 persons belonging to the Muslim community.

"In the present case, it is alleged that there is material in the case diary showing that the applicant has liked the post of one Farhan Usman for unlawful assembly, but liking a post will not amount to publishing or transmitting the post, therefore, merely liking a post will not attract Section 67 I.T. Act. Even otherwise, from the material on record, it appears that no message which could be provocative in nature is available on record and merely liking a message published by Chaudhari Farhan Usman will not attract penalty u/s 67 of I.T. Act or any other criminal offence.," the Court observed.

The petitioner was accused of liking the post of one Chaudhari Farhan Usman, in which it was mentioned that they would assemble before the collectorate to hand over the memorandum to the Hon'ble President of India.

The said message had allegedly resulted in the assembly of about 600-700 persons belonging to the Muslim community, and they arranged a procession without permission, which caused a serious threat to public order and peace.

Before the Court, the applicant's counsel contended that no material was against the applicant, and no content was found on the applicant's Facebook account.

On the other hand, the AGA, relying on extract of the case diary, submitted that the content was removed by the applicant, but the same was available on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.

However, noting that there was no material which could connect the applicant with any objectionable post, the Court quashed the case against him.