The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed in a recent judgement that those who bully others and spread false information on social media cannot be called ‘social media activists’. A bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati was hearing a petition filed by Pola Vijaya Babu, a lawyer who has appeared as a political analyst on multiple YouTube news channels including the YSR Congress Party’s mouthpiece Sakshi. His public interest litigation (PIL) alleged that the police uncer the Telugu Desam Party (TDP)-led state government were making arbitrary arrests targeting “social media activists” critical of the government.
The court dismissed his petition, saying that a PIL was meant to protect the fundamental rights of people who are unable to fight for their rights due to the existing social inequality, economic disadvantage or poverty. The court said that ‘social media activists’ do not fall under this category. The order was passed on November 13, and was recently uploaded on the website.
The judgement has come amid protests and criticism from the opposition YSRCP over the detention and arrests of several party supporters for allegedly making derogatory social media posts against TDP and Jana Sena Party leaders. YSRCP has been using the term ‘social media activists’ to refer to those who have been booked in such cases since the TDP came to power. The party has alleged that police have issued over 680 notices, filed 147 cases, and arrested 49 activists for posts critical of the government and its leaders. The previous YSRCP regime too was criticised for foisting similar cases against its critics, many of whom were TDP supporters.
Pola Vijaya Babu, in his petition, alleged that law enforcement was being misused to suppress dissent, with ‘activists’ facing unjustified charges. The plea sought judicial intervention to restrain the arrests and called for an inquiry into police conduct, claiming violations of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
However, the court found the petition politically motivated, and emphasised that social media activists are typically well-informed individuals capable of pursuing legal remedies independently. Highlighting the intended purpose of PILs, the bench observed, “Public interest litigation was a concept which was innovated by the courts with the view to protect the fundamental and other rights of the people who are unable to fight for such rights on account of the existing social inequality, economic disadvantage or poverty.”
“The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused, the very purpose for which it is conceived...will be defeated,” it added.
Addressing the role of social media activists, the judgement added, “A social media activist is one who can express his views on the social media...and is well capable of challenging the action of the State if they feel that the same is not legally appropriate or was not warranted in law.”
It also distinguished between legitimate critics and those who misuse the platform, noting, “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 bench also added, “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 PIL was dismissed with a cost of Rs 50,000, to be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority for supporting children with visual or hearing impairments.