The directors or creators of a WhatsApp group can’t be held vicariously answerable for any objectionable content material posted on it by any of its members, the Kerala High Court has held. The ruling by the excessive court docket got here whereas quashing a POCSO case towards the admin of a WhatsApp group one among whose members had posted little one pornography on it.

The court docket stated that as held by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, “the only privilege enjoyed by the admin of a WhatsApp group over other members is that he can either add or delete any of the members from the group”.

“He does not have physical or any control otherwise over what a member of a group is posting thereon. He cannot moderate or censor messages in a group.

“Thus, Creator or Administrator of a WhatsApp group, merely performing in that capability, can’t be vicariously held answerable for any objectionable content material posted by a member of the group,” the Kerala HC said.

In the instant matter, the petitioner had created a WhatsApp group called FRIENDS and he had made two other persons also as admins along with him and one of them posted in the group a porn video depicting children engaged in sexually explicit act.

As a result, police lodged a crime against that person – also the accused no. 1 – under the Information Technology Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act.

Subsequently, the petitioner was arrayed as accused no. 2 and after the investigation was completed, a final report was filed before the trial court.

The petitioner, in his plea seeking quashing of the proceedings against him, had contended that even if the entire allegations and the material collected are taken together at their face value, they do not indicate that he committed any offence.

The high court agreed with the contention and said, “There is nothing on document to recommend that the petitioner has revealed or transmitted or precipitated to be revealed or transmitted in any digital kind the alleged obscene materials or he browsed or downloaded the stated materials or, in any manner, facilitated abusing youngsters on-line. Similarly, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner used youngsters in any type of media for his sexual gratification or used them for pornographic function or saved, for business function, any little one pornographic materials.” The court also said that there was no law by which an admin of any messaging service can be held liable for a post made by a member of a group.

“A WhatsApp Admin can not bean middleman below the IT Act. He doesn’t obtain or transmit any document or present any service with respect to such document.

“There is no master-servant or principal-agent relationship between the Admin of a WhatsApp group and its members. It goes against basic principles of criminal law to hold an Admin liable for a post published by someone else in the group,” the court docket stated.

It additional stated that the essential elements of the offences alleged “are altogether absent as against the petitioner” and quashed all the proceedings within the case towards him.