Sources –
- Copy of the order passed by Dr Rakesh Minhas (IAS), District Magistrate, Jammu [Link]
- Copy of the order passed by Pankaj Kumar Sharma (JKAS), District Magistrate, Kishtwar [Link]
- Copy of the order passed by Mohammed Alyas Khan (JKAS), District Magistrate, Ramban [Link]
- Copy of the order passed by Krishan Lal (JKAS), District Magistrate, Doda [Link]
- IFF Statement[Link]
District Magistrates in Jammu, Ramban, Doda and Kishtwar have imposed wide-ranging restrictions on social media activity for 60 days, citing threats to public order and communal harmony. The orders, issued on April 17 under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), prohibit users from posting or sharing any content that could promote enmity, spread rumours, incite violence, or hurt religious sentiments.
What the orders say: The orders also bar circulation of “false, fabricated or misleading” information, morphed or out-of-context social media, and any online calls for boycotts, threats, or mobilisation of crowds against communities. Residents have been directed not only to avoid such content but also to report it to authorities. Group admins and moderators across platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook and YouTube have been made jointly responsible for ensuring compliance, with legal liability for failure to act.
Legal ambiguity around group admin liability: Holding group admins and moderators liable for user-generated content has been a contested issue in India. Courts have taken differing views, while the Bombay High Court (2021) held that WhatsApp group admins cannot be held vicariously liable without “common intention”. More recent rulings, including a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision (2023), have upheld charges against admins in certain cases. Earlier police advisories, such as in Maharashtra in 2024, have also warned of action against admins for content shared in groups. This creates legal uncertainty around the extent of responsibility placed on intermediaries and individuals managing online communities.
Enforcement and penalties: To enforce the orders, district police have been directed to register FIRs “without any undue delay,” while cyber units will monitor social media round-the-clock. Authorities have also warned that violations could attract multiple charges under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 152, 196, 197, 298 and 353, as well as Section 69A of the IT Act and the 2021 IT Rules, carrying penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment of up to seven years or more.
Among the provisions cited, Section 353 of the BNS (public mischief) has been increasingly used in cases involving online speech. For instance, stand-up comedian Anudeep Katikala was recently detained by Andhra Pradesh police over YouTube jokes, with charges including public mischief. Such cases have raised concerns about the provision’s broad use and its potential impact on free…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
