Misleading Social Media Posts Violate Right To Life: Rajasthan HC Orders Removal Of Facebook Post About Minor, Flags Privacy Violation
Rajasthan High Court held that any misleading material on Facebook or social media which was found to be false, malicious and intended at damaging the reputation or invading privacy of an individual, was a violation of that individual's right to fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a minor, living with...
Rajasthan High Court held that any misleading material on Facebook or social media which was found to be false, malicious and intended at damaging the reputation or invading privacy of an individual, was a violation of that individual's right to fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a minor, living with her mother at her maternal house, after her father's death, alleging posting of misleading post on Facebook by her grandparents claiming her to be missing and announcing an award of Rs. 1 lakh for anyone who traced her.
The petitioner contended that such post led to various unwanted and unknown people visiting her home to trace her. In this light the petition was filed seeking adequate protection from such unknown persons.
The respondents denied the allegation, and submitted that the grandmother had already passed away, and the grandfather, being a 70 year old man, neither uploaded any such post on Facebook, nor offered any reward. It was argued that the petition was filed only to harass the respondents.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that posting of such misleading material of social media, electronic or print media, amounted to violation of personal rights, dignity and reputation of an individual, guaranteed under Article 21.
“Social media companies may harm the dignity of anyone. Regulation of social media is essential to make a balance between freedom of expression with the dignity and rights of vulnerable group. A combination of robust legal framework, technological solutions, digital literacy and ethical practice can ensure accountability, curb misrepresentation and foster a safe, inclusive and credible online ecosystem.”
The Court further referred to the Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, highlighting that intermediaries like Facebook or X must publish rules prohibiting users from posting “patently false or misleading” information, impersonation, defamation, content invading privacy, gender harassment, etc.
However, it was stated that no such rule were framed by Facebook that had led to the misleading information about the petitioner being posted on the platform, causing hindrance in her personal liberty.
Since the posting of the material on Facebook was disputed by the respondent, the Court directed the parent company of Facebook to take appropriate actions to block/take down the post and photos of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of. The Order was directed to be sent to the registered office of parent company of Facebook.
Title: Aaradhya Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 88