Merely liking a post on social media does not amount to an offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act, and the right to freedom of speech and expression must be exercised consciously and in line with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jai Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 16.12.2019, cognizance order dated 16.3.2020 as well as non-bailable warrant dated 30.6.2023 passed in Case No. 17603 of 2020 (State vs. Sami and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2019, u/s 147, 148, 149 I.P.C., Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Mantola, District Agra, pending before the C.J.M., Agra.

3. The allegation against the applicant was that he posted certain provocative messages on social media, which resulted in the assembly of about 600-700 persons belonging to the Muslim community for arranging procession without permission, which caused a serious threat to breach of peace.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is no material against the applicant, and even the report of Cyber Crime Cell, Crime Branch, Agra itself shows that no content was found on the Facebook account of the applicant.

5. In the counter affidavit, learned A.G.A. has relied on extract of the case diary (Page-8 of the counter affidavit) in which contents of the cyber cell report have been mentioned. In that part of the case diary, it is mentioned that though there is no content in the Facebook account of the applicant because he has deleted the same, but the contents are available on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.

6. This Court, by order dated 11.10.2023, had directed the I.O. to remain personally present before this Court along with report showing any material in the case diary regarding objectionable posts on Whatsapp and other social media. In pursuance of that order, the I.O., Mr. Anuj Kumar, appeared before this Court and placed reliance on the post of one Chaudhari Farhan Usman, which was liked by the applicant, Imran Kazi, in which it was mentioned that they would assemble before the collectorate to hand over the memorandum to Hon'ble the President of India.

7. From perusal of Section 67 of the I.T. Act, it is clear that it is punishable only when any person publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which tends to deprave and corrupt persons who read, see or hear aforesaid material/message contained or embodied. Section 67 of the I.T. Act is being quoted as under :

"67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. - Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees."

8. From the perusal of the provision mentioned above, it is clear that publishing or transmitting obscene material is an offence. 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. 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