Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
proflie-avatar
Login
exit_to_app
DEEP READ
Ukraine
access_time 16 Aug 2023 11:16 AM IST
Espionage in the UK
access_time 13 Jun 2025 10:20 PM IST
Yet another air tragedy
access_time 13 Jun 2025 9:45 AM IST
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightKeralachevron_rightHigh Court warns...

High Court warns against irresponsible use of social media

text_fields
bookmark_border
High Court warns against irresponsible use of social media
cancel

Kochi: In a society where cyber crimes have become a major threat, it is necessary to use social with a sense of responsibility. Although social media has brought about a revolution in communications, and has benefited the society in many ways, it has also opened the doors for major criminal acts.

The court made the comments while dismissing the bail application of Bijumon, from Melattoor, Malappuram, who had posted comments in internet in a manner creating religious hatred between people.

Melattoor Police charged a case against the petitioner for posting such comments below news items in a private news portal. He had made objectionable comments about Prophet Mohammed also, and was charged under Sec 153(A) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner apologetically pleaded that he did not intend to harm religious amity nor denigrate Muslims. He also said that he did not belong to any organization that spreads religious hatred.

The government counsel, who opposed the bail application, said that Bijimon made the comments knowingly and this would make big repercussions in the society.

The Court observed that the freedom of expression existing in a secular country is not a licence to attack the religious beliefs of others. The court cannot take a stance in favour of those who made contemptuous mention of others and based on the case diary which the court reviewed, stated that the comments prima facie show contempt.

The post against Prophet Mohammed, has to be treated as intended to hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims. Feeling of hatred being a state of mind, there cannot be direct or visible evidence, and can be proved only by circumstantial evidence. That Section 295-A has not been invoked in the charge sheet, does not become reason enough to dismiss the case or to grant anticipatory jail. The court also clarified that in the course of the enquiry, the investigating official can add necessary sections of IPC.

Show Full Article
Next Story