The order was passed last month and a copy of it was made available on 22 April. The departmental bench led by Justice Za Haq and AB Borkar said that WhatsApp group administrators have limited powers like adding and removing members. Admin cannot sensor or control the objectionable material inserted by another member.
The court passed this order in terms of an application filed by Kishore Tron (33). Kishore Tonon wanted that in Gondia district, in Gondia district, within the year 2016, section 354-A (1) (IV) (to comment for sexual sentiment) 509 (insulting the shame of woman) and 107 (Ukasana) and 107 (Ukasana) and IT Act section 67 (publishing or communicating objectionable materials in electronic form) should be dismissed.
According to the indictment, Taron did not take any action against a female member of the group against a female member of the Group.
It was alleged that the applicant neither expelled nor asked him to apologize as a group administrator. The court said that the squeeze of the entire case stays on the fact whether the WhatsApp group administrator should be considered criminally responsible for the objectionable posts made by other members.
Keeping in mind the methodology of this messaging service app, the court said, “The group administrator is the person who forms a group and adds or removes members. Each chat group can have more than one administrator.”
“The group manager only has limited power to remove or add a member. Once the group is formed, the function of the administrator and the members becomes the same, except for the members adding or removing.”
“WhatsApp’s group administrator does not have the power to regulate or sensor before posting the content. Yes, if a member posts any objectionable material in the group, then that member can be held responsible for him.”
“WhatsApp group administrators cannot be held responsible for the objectionable material posted by other members, due to lack of special punishable provisions that are represented obligations, unless there is any connivance or pre -prescribed plan in it.” The court said.
The High Court rejected the FIR and charge sheet filed against Taron.
