The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made a significant observation regarding the liability of a WhatsApp group admin. According to the court, the admin of a group where objectionable content, like a photo, is circulated and shared could be held accountable, even if they became the admin by default. This ruling emphasizes that the continued presence of an admin during the time when inappropriate material is being circulated within the group establishes a prima facie case of liability.

In the said matter, the accused lodged a revision petition with the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the Sessions Court's decision to frame charges against them. The charges were made under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 124A, 153A, and 295A, as well as under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 4 in conjunction with Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of 1986.

Citing the Allahabad High Court's ruling in Mohd. Imran Malik Vs. State of U.P.,

Justice Prem Narayan Singh's bench highlighted that based on this precedent, the individual in question, who was unequivocally the admin of the WhatsApp group when the objectionable photo was distributed, bears liability for the mentioned offenses. This liability persists regardless of whether they assumed the role of admin by default.

Based on the First Information Report, an incident involving the sharing of an explicit photo alongside the National Flag in a WhatsApp group called 'Sanskari Kamine' aimed at provoking the religious sentiments of Hindus occurred. The individual in question, referred to as the petitioner, contested the framing of charges, asserting they weren't the original admin of the WhatsApp group where the objectionable content surfaced.

They disclaimed any involvement with the offensive material, stating they neither created, shared, nor endorsed the objectionable photos. The prosecution countered this by arguing that being a member and admin of the WhatsApp group rendered the petitioner liable for the charges. They stressed that using WhatsApp inherently involves agreeing to its terms and conditions, implying responsibility for the content circulated within the group.

In its review of past legal cases and established legal principles concerning the framing of charges, the Court emphasized its role at this stage. The focus lay on establishing whether there exists a substantial suspicion indicating the accused's involvement in committing the alleged offense.

The Court said, “the learned trial Court, while framing of charges, must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that there is strong possibility subsist that the accused has committed the offence.”

After hearing an arguments from both parties and examining pertinent legal precedents, the Court declined the petitioner's arguments. It concluded that the trial court's order lacked any illegality, bias, or flaw. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the charges framed by the trial court.

Cause Title: Juned v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer & Ors.