Andhra Pradesh HC Flags Surge In Online Trolling, Abusive Posts; Suggests 'Auto-Blocking' Of Swear Words On Social Media

A bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed this order while observing that vulgar, hate-filled, and abusive posts on social media have become the "new age norm", and that 'trolls' attract lightning responses all over, particularly when directed at celebrities or political leaders of stature and following.

“It appears that profanity thrives the business entities as they attract instantaneous reactions,” the single judge remarked as it emphasised that every citizen has the right to lead a dignified life, which is a human right recognised under the Constitution of India.

“The State Government is obligated to ensure that this right to a dignified life of citizens is not infringed, and it is in that context that the list of expletives, swear words, militant words, and words akin thereto should be identified by the State Government, and executive instructions should be issued, in exercise of their power under the Constitution, prohibiting usage of such words on social media,” the bench observed in its order passed earlier this month.

For this purpose, the Andhra Pradesh HC proposed a technological solution of 'auto-blocking'. The court also drew a parallel with the implementation of this mechanism in Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India, wherein intermediaries were directed by the top court to auto-block advertisements violating the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

While there was 'initial resistance' in that case, intermediaries eventually came around, and this concept was introduced and accepted, the Court pointed out.

The Court further urged the state government to consider its observations in the order 'as expeditiously as possible'.

Background of the case

The single judge made these observations while dealing with a bunch of anticipatory bail pleas filed by YSR Congress Party's social media head, Sajjala Bhargav Reddy, who is facing various FIRs in the state, inter alia, under Section 111 of the BNS [organised crime].

Reddy has been accused of spreading derogatory/abusive posts on social media platforms against the rival political leaders holding Constitutional posts.

He had approached the High Court contending that, except for the offence under Section 111 of the BNS, which, according to him, was not attracted against him, all the other offences alleged against him are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years.

Therefore, by default, he argued, he was entitled to a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS [Section 41-A of the erstwhile CrPC) as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another.

It was his primary case in the HC that Section 111 of the BNS would not get attracted to the facts of the case, as it requires two charge sheets to be pending in the past 10 years concerning the offences specified in Section 111 of the BNS, which is not the case with Reddy.

It was contended that this offence was added to the FIR only with an intent to ensure that there is no requirement to follow Section 35 of the BNSS and to settle political scores by arresting the Petitioner.

It was further contended that many of the alleged abusive posts were made prior to the onset of the BNS and therefore Section 111 of the BNS cannot be made applicable to the case.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor produced the details of the social media posts and contended that such derogatory posts had been made solely at Reddy's instance and the same have the effect of disturbing the harmony in the society.

It was also submitted that the 'organised' derogatory posts at Reddy's instance amounted to 'organized crime' under Section 111 BNS, and since many such posts were made after the enactment of the new criminal laws, this provision was applicable to the facts of the case.

Lastly, it was also argued that there is no requirement for two charge sheets against the accused in the previous 10 years and submitted that the filing of complaints would suffice.

Having considered the arguments of both sides, the bench, at the outset, noted that the primary requirement to attract “organised crime” (under Section 111 BNS) is that the unlawful activity should be for material benefit for the accused including financial benefit in view of the wording “to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit”.

The Court observed that the term “material benefit” refers to tangible benefits that can be expressed in terms of money or property or is referable to some visible benefit; however, in the instant case, it was not forthcoming as to what material benefit Reddy had obtained.

The Court also addressed the second aspect of the issue, namely Explanation (ii) to Section 111 of the BNS, which defines “continuing unlawful activity” and mandates that more than one charge sheet must have been filed against the accused in the preceding ten years.

The Court noted that, as on the date of registration of the offences against Reddy, there was nothing on record to indicate the pendency of any chargesheet against him for the offences referred to in Section 111 of the BNS within the preceding ten years.

In the absence of any such chargesheet at the time of registration of the crime, the Court observed, the invocation of Section 111 of the BNS at this stage did not appear to be in consonance with the requirements of law.

In that view of the case, the Court disposed of the petitions while directing the Station House Officers concerned to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS.