Gujarat High Court Rules on WhatsApp Fake News Forwarding
On Wednesday, the Gujarat High Court delivered a significant ruling concerning the forwarding of fake newspaper clippings via WhatsApp. The court determined that merely forwarding such a clipping does not constitute forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without clear evidence of fabrication by the sender. This decision came during the hearing of Kaushalbhai Jagdishbhai Asodiya v State of Gujarat & Anr.
Justice PM Raval presided over the case, which involved a first information report (FIR) against a man accused of forwarding a fake newspaper clipping with the intent to defame the complainant. The complainant, a member of the Bahujan Samaj Party, alleged a conspiracy to tarnish his reputation by circulating the fake clipping on WhatsApp and social media platforms.
The court scrutinized the evidence and concluded that there was no material to suggest that the accused had fabricated or intended to damage the complainant’s reputation. The accused’s actions were limited to forwarding the clipping to another individual, who subsequently shared it with the complainant.
Legal Interpretations and Observations
Justice Raval observed that the allegations in the FIR, even when taken at face value, did not constitute forgery under Section 469 of the IPC, which pertains to forgery for harming reputation. The court noted the absence of any substantial evidence or mention in the FIR and chargesheet that would implicate the accused under this section.
The High Court highlighted that the petitioner merely forwarded the clip and was not involved in its creation or wider dissemination. Moreover, the publisher and editor of the newspaper in which the alleged defamatory content appeared were not named as accused in the FIR.
More Read
Justice Raval stated, “He has not indulged in circulating the said news if at all it is fake, coupled with the fact that the publisher and/or the editor of the said newspaper are not made accused in the impugned FIR or in the chargesheet also, who have allegedly published the alleged defamatory statement as per the complainant.”
Quashing the FIR and Further Proceedings
The court further noted that the allegations did not establish offenses of defamation, printing defamatory matter, criminal conspiracy, or abetment. Justice Raval emphasized that the FIR and chargesheet lacked details showing how the complainant or his party was defamed.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the court concluded that continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
More Read
Advocate Manthan V Shukla represented the petitioner, while Advocate Ratna Vora appeared for the original complainant. Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah represented the State.
