Social Media Bullies Spreading Hate Cannot Be Called Activists: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasized that individuals using social media to spread hate and false information cannot be regarded as "social media activists."
The remarks came while the Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that alleged unfair and excessive targeting of social media activists by the police.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, distinguished between a legitimate critic of the government and a "social media bully."
The Court observed, “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,”
Senior Counsel S. Sriram appeared for the Petitioner.
The Bench further clarified that such individuals should not be referred to as "social media activists," as their actions do not align with the principles of activism. The Court said, “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 Court explained that PILs are designed to protect the rights of those who are unable to fight for themselves due to social or economic disadvantages, such as marginalized groups, bonded laborers, child laborers, and prisoners. In contrast, the Court noted that individuals identified as social media activists do not fall into these categories of vulnerability and are fully aware of their rights.
A "social media activist," the Court explained is, “A critic of the Government, who expresses himself or herself on the social media, is a person who is fully aware of his rights and, therefore, a social media activist is a person, who is well informed and aware of what goes on in the society and has the capacity to criticize the acts of omission or commission of those in power or authority,”
Therefore, the Court concluded that a PIL filed on behalf of this group—who are neither marginalized nor economically disadvantaged—was inappropriate and not maintainable.
The Court also noted that in the specific cases mentioned in the petition, the affected individuals had already pursued appropriate legal remedies available to them.
As a result, the Court dismissed the PIL, stating that it appeared to have been filed with political motives. The Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for bringing forth what it deemed a misconceived petition, directing that the amount be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within one month. This money was to be used to benefit children suffering from visual or hearing impairments.
Cause Title: Pola Vijaya Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [APHC010496832024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Counsel S. Sriram and Advocate Papudippu Sashidar Reddy