Bombay High Court Shocks With Verdict on Defamation on WhatsApp – Here’s What It Means For You

Mumbai: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently stated that recipients of WhatsApp messages are not liable for defamation unless they choose to forward the message. This judgment emphasizes the private nature of end-to-end encrypted communication on the platform and establishes that the recipient alone can view the message unless they take further action to distribute it.

The case in question involved a man who allegedly sent a “defamatory” WhatsApp message about his in-laws. The complainant, who is related to the accused by marriage, claimed the message defamed his family. However, the court ruled that simply receiving a message does not imply intent to defame, and that defamation liability only applies if the recipient chooses to forward or publish the message.

A division bench, comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar, underscored that an encrypted message is visible only to the recipient. The court noted that the law cannot hold a sender liable for defamation if the message is not further shared, as the recipient controls its distribution. This ruling reinforces the privacy rights of individuals using end-to-end encrypted platforms like WhatsApp.

Police Criticized for Misuse of Law and Wrongful Arrest

The court also took issue with the actions of the Investigating Officer (IO) involved in the case. It noted that the IO had applied Section 66-A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, which the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional years earlier. The bench expressed concern that the police arrested the accused under a defunct law, calling the incident an example of “high-handedness” and a disregard for due process.

ALSO READ: Empanelment for Speakers, Trainers, and Cyber Security Experts Opens at Future Crime Research Foundation

In addition to this, the court highlighted the responsibility of judicial officers to verify the legality of arrests. It criticized the Magistrate who had failed to question the grounds of the arrest or whether the relevant sections of the law were correctly applied. According to the court, Magistrates should actively ensure that police actions comply with legal standards, rather than approving custody requests without due diligence.

Compensation Ordered for Wrongful Detention

In a further reprimand to the authorities, the High Court ordered the Investigating Officer to pay Rs. 2 lakh in compensation to the accused, while the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 50,000. This ruling not only provides relief to the accused but also sets a precedent for accountability within law enforcement, particularly when constitutional rights are at stake.

The bench concluded its judgment by quashing the FIR against the accused and emphasized that mechanical orders by Magistrates and misuse of unconstitutional sections by law enforcement must be avoided. This ruling serves as a reminder for both law enforcement officers and the judiciary to follow due process and uphold the principles of justice and individual privacy in cases involving digital communication.

Follow The420.in on

 Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube