Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Drawing a clear distinction between a ‘critic of the Government’ and a ‘social media bully’, the Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that social media platforms cannot be used as a shield for spreading false information or targeting individuals with vulgar or defamatory content. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Pola Vijaya Babu, terming it politically motivated and imposing costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner.

“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 platform may also be used for spreading hatred amongst communities to bring about social unrest,” the court said, emphasising that such persons cannot be considered social media activists.

The court further highlighted that a social media activist is typically well-aware of their rights and informed about societal developments. This awareness enables them to critically evaluate and voice opinions on the actions or inactions of those in positions of power or authority. However, in contrast, a social media bully uses the platform to spread hate and social unrest. “Such elements need to be dealt with in accordance with law especially those who are available as ‘guns for hire’,” the court stated.

The PIL alleged indiscriminate arrests of social media activists by the police. The petitioner highlighted that such arrests were conducted to target social media critics of the government or persons not aligned to the ecosystem of the present ruling party, citing multiple FIRs registered against such individuals. The PIL sought judicial intervention to halt these alleged arbitrary arrests and demanded an inquiry into police actions. It was argued that these acts violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and was, thus, illegal.

The High Court, however, rejected these claims, observing that the petition failed to qualify as a legitimate PIL. The court underscored that PILs are intended to protect marginalized and disadvantaged groups who lack access to justice, not individuals capable of pursuing legal remedies. “It can be seen that the present petition has been filed to espouse cause not of persons who are downtrodden, or belong to an economically weaker section of the society, who are incapable of approaching the Courts for protecting their rights or challenging the action of the State, rather, the petitioner seeks to espouse the cause of a community of social media activists as they are called, who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either marginalised or suffer an economic handicap, and cannot take resort to the remedies which are otherwise available to them in law,” the bench noted.

The court dismissed the PIL finding that the “petition is misconceived, and appears to have been filed with political motives.” The petitioner was directed to deposit ₹50,000 with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within one month. The funds are to be used for the benefit of children with visual or hearing impairments.

 

Cause Title: Pola Vijaya Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others [WP(PIL) NO: 187 of 2024]

Appearances: Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. S. Sriram, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr.Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, and Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR HOME, GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION