Back
WhatsApp Status Not , Can't Attract :
The has delivered a significant ruling on the limits of free speech in the digital age, holding that a statement shared as a WhatsApp status does not amount to “” on a , and therefore cannot attract the offence of under . Quashing an FIR against one Venkappa Gowda, Justice Rajesh Rai K emphasized that the primary ingredients of the provision— and —were absent.
The Complaint and the WhatsApp Status
The case originated from a complaint filed on , by a member of the . The complaint alleged that on —the day after the election results were announced—the petitioner uploaded a WhatsApp status stating, “Modi ji has not lost, he has won and the people who have lost are born to Muslims.” The complainant claimed this statement created enmity between communities, leading the to register FIR No. 38/2024 under .
Petitioner's Challenge and State's Opposition
Appearing for Venkappa Gowda, advocate argued that the complainant was not an aggrieved party, the status did not incite violence, and the complaint was politically motivated, lodged two days after the post. He contended that the WhatsApp status lacked and was never published or circulated in a . In contrast, the High Court Government Pleader opposed the quashing, asserting that the FIR disclosed the ingredients of and that investigation was still ongoing.
Court's Reasoning: Publication is Key
Justice Rajesh Rai K, after careful consideration, found no merit in the State's argument. The Court observed that the WhatsApp status, when read as a whole, “does not disclose any semblance of intention or motive on the part of the petitioner to cause disorder or incite people to violence.” Crucially, the Court noted that the status was posted on a platform that is “neither a social media platform nor any and it is accessible normally to people who are in his contact list.” Therefore, the primary element of “” required under was completely absent.
Reliance on Precedent
The High Court drew heavily from the 's decision in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (), which interpreted the words “” in Section 505(2) as supplementary to each other—meaning a mere maker without publication is not liable. The had also held that is a necessary ingredient for the offence. Applying this precedent, the High Court concluded that since the WhatsApp status was not publicly circulated, no offence was made out.
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “A careful reading of the said WhatsApp status does not disclose any semblance of intention or motive on the part of the petitioner to cause disorder or incite people to violence.”
- “The same was posted in WhatsApp status, which is neither a social media platform nor any and it is accessible normally to people who are in his contact list.”
- “There is no of the statements by the petitioner and since the same is posted in the WhatsApp status, the ingredients of does not attract.”
The Final Decision
Holding that the continuation of proceedings would be an , Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 38/2024. The ruling reinforces that private, semi-private digital communications—even if potentially offensive—do not automatically meet the threshold of public dissemination required for offences like . It serves as a reminder that the line between and remains a critical factor in determining criminal liability under .
