The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently remarked that persons using social media to spread hate and false information cannot be called social media activists [Pola Vijaya Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh]..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati emphasized that there exists a distinction between a critic of the government and a social media bully.“We need to emphasize that there is certainly a distinction between a critic of the Government who expresses himself or herself on the social media and a social media bully, who uses the platform to bully an individual, an officer or a person in authority by spreading false information, maligning the character of a person or his family members by use of unparliamentary language which at times may be vulgar,” the Court said while imposing costs of ₹50,000 on a PIL which flagged arrest of social media activists..The Court said that social media platforms were being increasingly used for spreading hatred among communities and to bring about social unrest. The toxicity of such comments has a devastating effect on law-abiding citizens, who may suffer a targeted attack under a well organized strategy, the Court underscored.“Such persons using the social media platform cannot be said in the least to be social media activists. A social media platform does not give any immunity to a person from whatever is said in the social media which otherwise constitutes an offense in law. On the other hand, such elements need to be dealt with in accordance with law especially those who are available as ‘guns for hire’,” the Court said..A social media platform does not give any immunity to a person from whatever is said in the social media which otherwise constitutes an offense in law.Andhra Pradesh High Court.It made these observations while deciding a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging indiscriminate arrests and unfair targeting of ‘social media activists’ by police.The Court said PIL developed and evolved with a view to protect the fundamental and other rights of the people who are unable to fight for such rights due to the existing social inequality, economic disadvantage or poverty. “It was meant to protect those who are unable to fight for themselves, for example, bonded labourers, child labourers and labour in the unorganized sector, and prisoners,” it added. .In contrast, the Court opined, a community of social media activists cannot be said to be either marginalized or economically handicapped.It explained that a social media activist is the one who can express his views on the internet through an electronic device like a computer or an advanced phone.“A critic of the Government, who expresses himself or herself on the social media, is a person who is fully aware of his rights and, therefore, a social media activist is a person, who is well informed and aware of what goes on in the society and has the capacity to criticize the acts of omission or commission of those in power or authority,” it said..Thus, the Court made it clear that a PIL would not be maintainable on behalf of such a section of the society.It also noted that in the cases highlighted by the petitioner, those accused or affected had taken resort to the appropriate remedies available in law..Therefore, the Court called the PIL misconceived and observed that it appeared to have been filed with political motives. Hence, it dismissed the PIL with costs of ₹50,000. “The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited with the A.P. State Legal Services Authority within one month, who shall utilise the same for the benefit of children, who are suffering from visual or hearing impairment,” it ordered..Senior Counsel S Sriram with advocate Papudippu Sashidar Reddy represented the petitioner.[Read Judgment]
