The Calcutta High Court has held that the concept of “public view” under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can extend to social media platforms, including Facebook. The court made the observation while ordering a fresh investigation into a complaint alleging caste-based abuse through Facebook posts, as reported in Economic Times.
Justice Uday Kumar, in an order dated September 25, said the concept of public view can extend to the “digital domain” when offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are alleged.
The provisions deal with intentional insult or intimidation and caste-based abuse against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes when such conduct occurs in public view.
Facebook Posts Allegedly Targeted Complainant’s Caste, Religion and Family
The case originated in September 2022, when a Behala resident approached the police alleging that two individuals had posted abusive comments about him on Facebook, targeting his caste, religion and family.
The police collected screenshots and digital links relating to the alleged posts and recorded statements from independent witnesses. However, the investigation eventually ended with a “Final Report True, No Clue” report.
The police said attempts had been made through the cybercrime unit to obtain information from Facebook that could identify the users behind the accounts. According to the police, the platform did not provide the required user details.
The complainant subsequently challenged the closure report by filing a “na-raji” petition, which is a protest against the police final report. However, the lower court rejected the petition and accepted the police report in June 2023.
Calcutta High Court Questions Police Decision to Close Investigation
The High Court questioned whether the inability to obtain user information from Facebook was sufficient reason to bring the investigation to an end.
The court observed that further investigation could have been undertaken using specialised cyber-forensic methods. It pointed to the possibility of involving a specialised CID unit and using investigative procedures such as IP-log tracking to identify the individuals behind the posts.
The High Court also criticised the lower court for failing to direct a further investigation by a senior police officer.
The order noted that treating the absence of user information from the social media platform as the end of the investigation resulted in a serious failure of the judicial process.
‘Public View’ Can Extend to the Digital Domain
A key aspect of the ruling concerns the interpretation of “public view” under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The court held that the concept need not be confined to a physical location and can extend to the “digital domain”.
In the context of social media, the court observed that a post published on a platform such as Facebook can potentially be viewed by members of the public, even though the alleged offence takes place online.
The ruling, however, does not mean that every offensive social media post automatically constitutes an offence under the SC/ST Act. The statutory requirements must still be satisfied, and the evidence and circumstances of each individual case have to be examined.
HC Rejects Reliance on Complainant’s Other Cases
The High Court also questioned the reasoning adopted by the lower court while accepting the police closure report.
The lower court had noted that the complainant had filed three other cases in which charge sheets had been submitted and had considered that circumstance while dealing with the Facebook complaint.
The High Court held that each alleged criminal incident must be examined independently on the basis of its own facts and evidence.
The matter has now been sent back for further investigation.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
