Skip to main content

Whatsapp Admin Is Not Responsible For Any Wrong Post By Members -Court

Administrator of WhatsApp group not liable for content: Delhi HC


The Office of Special Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra Cyber has issued an advisory warning that admins of Whatsapp groups along with users could be punished for posting objectionable content on Whatsapp groups. The advisory has cited various provisions including Sections 153 A, 153B, 295A, 505 and 188 of Indian Penal Code, Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, Section 68 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and Section 144 and Section 144(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.Even prior to this advisory, there have been media reports that focused on the liability of Whatsapp Group admins for objectionable messages sent by members of the group. The reports also quoted opinions by a few experts who claimed that Whatsapp Group admins are intermediaries and have to comply with the guidelines and rules applicable to intermediaries to claim safe-harbour protection.Disinformation on social media is a major issue which Governments and law enforcement agencies have to deal with across the world. However, coming up with illegal executive orders is not an effective way to deal with this. The advisory issued by the Maharashtra police has tried to slap penal provisions on Whatsapp group admins without any statutory basis and in violation of the basic principles of criminal law.
A Whatsapp group admin has only a limited power to add or remove members from a group. Unless she has abetted or assisted in posting an objectionable message, she can, by no stretch of imagination be held liable for any post made by a member of the group. Of course, if a group has been formed for an illegal purpose like sharing child abuse videos then the admin can be held liable. There is no law by which an admin of any messaging service can be held liable for a post made by a member in the group. Any executive order, much less an advisory, which attempts at penalising an act without any statutory backing will be illegal. None of the statutory provisions stated in the advisory saddles the admin of a Whatsapp group with any liability for a post made by a member of the group. Section 68 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 only states that all persons shall be bound to conform to the reasonab1e directions of a Police officer given in fulfilment of any of his duties under this Act. This provision does not give the Police any power to come up with a set of directions for Whatsapp group admins along with penal consequences for non compliance. It is also to be noted that as per Section 140 of this Act the maximum punishment for contravention of S.68 of the Act is fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Such a section cannot be used as a blanket provision to impose liability for a Whatsapp group admin for an act which is done by someone else.The admin of a Whatsapp group cannot be vicariously liable for any act by a member of the group. There is no master-servant or a principal-agent relationship between the admin of a Whatsapp group and its member.
The Apex Court has held in Sham Sunder and Ors. vs. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 630 that 'there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes that also within its fold'. This dictum was followed in R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta (2009)1 SCC 516.In this connection, it is also pertinent to refer to the 2016 decision of the Delhi High Court in Ashish Bhalla vs Suresh Chawdhary, which held that the group admin was not liable for a defamatory text made by a member.'When an online platform is created, the creator, thereof, cannot expect any of the members thereof to indulge in defamation and defamatory statements made by any member of the group cannot make the administrator liable therefore. It is not as if without the administrator's approval of each of the statements, the statements cannot be posted by any of the members of the group on the said platform,' the court observed.
Dismissing a civil suit for defamation against the group admin, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said: 'I am unable to understand as to how the administrator of a group can be held liable for defamation even if any, by the statements made by a member of the group.'No intermediary liability There also seems to be an attempt at creating confusion on the aspect of secondary liability by holding that a Whatsapp Group admin can be considered to be an Intermediary. Section 2 (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states that ' with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes. A Whatsapp group admin does not have any power to...",
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.188/2016, IA No.4901/2016 (u/O 39 R-1&2 CPC), IA
No.8988/2016 (of D-2 u/O 7 R-11 CPC) IA No.9553/2016 (of
defendants no.1 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC), IA
No.9554/2016 (of defendant no.6 under order VII Rule 11 CPC) and
IA No.11830/2016 (under Order I Rule 10 CPC).
ASHISH BHALLA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Mr. Shaunak
Kashyap, Mr. Rahul Mukherjee and
Ms. Sriyanka Gangopadhyay, Advs.
versus
SURESH CHAWDHARY & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kalia and Mr. Sayed
Aqueel Ali, Advs. for D-1&3.
Mr. Rajat Navet, Adv. for D-2.
Mr. Shailesh K. Kapoor with Ms.
Suruchi Thapar and Mr. Ajay Kumar,
Advs. for D-4.
Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv. for
D-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
% 29.11.2016


 17 .Similarly, I am unable to understand as to how the Administrator of a Group can be held liable for defamation even if any, by the statements made by a member of the Group. To make an Administrator of an online platform liable for defamation would be like making the manufacturer of the newsprint on which defamatory statements are published liable for defamation. When an online platform is created, the creator thereof cannot expect any of the members thereof to indulge in defamation and defamatory statements made by any member of the group cannot make the Administrator liable therefor. It is not as if without the Administrator‟s approval of each of the statements, the statements cannot be posted by any of the members of the Group on the said platform.

http://images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2016/12/Ashish-Bhalla-v.-Suresh-Chawdhary.pdf


Comments

  1. d s ranga rao5 May 2020 at 10:00

    But, what if the admins want to be more loyal than the king himself!?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FDA Maharashtra Directory Contact Moblie Number

Food and Drug Administration Directory  DOWNLOAD JUNE 2021 CONTACT LIST PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT Field Office Circle Head (Assit Commissioner Address of Field Office Inspector AHMEDNAGAR A.T. RATHOD (7045757882) 19C, Siddhivinayak Colony,,Near Auxillium School, Savedi,,Ahmednagar - 414003 J.H.SHAIKH (9158424524) AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) Civil Line, Akashwani Road, ,Akola ,AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) AMARAVATI U.B.GHAROTE (9595829895) Office of the Joint Commissioner,Jawade Compound, Near Bus Stand,Amrawati-444 601 C. K. DANGE (9422844477) AURANGABAD S. S. KALE (9987236658) Office of the Joint Commissioner,,2nd floor, Nath Super Market, Aurangpura,Aurangabad R. M. BAJAJ (9422496941) AURANGABAD Zone 2 ...
29 comments
Main news

RTE & School Quota Of Kalyan Dombivli KDMC Region Thane

 Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Region School Quota and RTE 25% quota details received from RTI reply from KDMC Education department. Almost in all the schools free education seats for income below Rs1lac is vacant .The vacant seats are illegally filled by private school in open category by private schools by taking donations. KDMC education didnot taken any action. Total approved strength of class is 4 times of RTE quota. If RTE 25% quota is 25 then approved students limit is 100 students. Means 75 students from general and 25 from RTE 25% quota. In all the schools students are more than from approved strength and RTE 25% seats are vacant. It means RTE seats are filled by general students. As per RTE Act 2009 poor quota seats ie RTE25% cannot be filled by general quota in any condition and at any class. Helpline 9702859636  RTE Admission 
Main news

हिन्दू शब्द वेदों से लिया गया है ना की फ़ारसी से

  HINDU WORD ORIGIN PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT हिन्दू शब्द सिंधु से बना है  औऱ यह फारसी शब्द है। परंतु ऐसा कुछ नहीं है! ये केवल झुठ फ़ैलाया जाता है।ये नितांत असत्य है  ........ "हिन्दू"* शब्द की खोज - *"हीनं दुष्यति इति हिन्दूः से हुई है।”* *अर्थात* जो अज्ञानता और हीनता का त्याग करे उसे हिन्दू कहते हैं। 'हिन्दू' शब्द, करोड़ों वर्ष प्राचीन, संस्कृत शब्द से है! यदि संस्कृत के इस शब्द का सन्धि विछेदन करें तो पायेंगे .... *हीन+दू* = हीन भावना + से दूर *अर्थात* जो हीन भावना या दुर्भावना से दूर रहे, मुक्त रहे, वो हिन्दू है ! हमें बार-बार, सदा झूठ ही बतलाया जाता है कि हिन्दू शब्द मुगलों ने हमें दिया, जो *"सिंधु" से "हिन्दू"* हुआ l *हिन्दू शब्द की वेद से ही उत्पत्ति है !* जानिए, कहाँ से आया हिन्दू शब्द, और कैसे हुई इसकी उत्पत्ति ? हमारे "वेदों" और "पुराणों" में *हिन्दू शब्द का उल्लेख* मिलता है। आज हम आपको बता रहे हैं कि हमें हिन्दू शब्द कहाँ से मिला है! "ऋग्वेद" के *"...
14 comments
Main news