The Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasized the difference between a ‘critic of the government’ and 'social media bully,’ asserting that social media platforms cannot serve as a cover for spreading misinformation or engaging in personal attacks with obscene or defamatory content.

A division bench, led by Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Pola Vijaya Babu, labeling it as politically motivated and ordering the petitioner to pay ₹50,000 in costs.

“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. The platform may also be used for spreading hatred amongst communities to bring about social unrest,” the court said, emphasising that such persons cannot be considered social media activists.

The court further emphasized that a social media activist is generally well-informed about their rights and societal issues, which allows them to critically assess and express opinions on the actions or failures of those in power. In contrast, a social media bully misuses the platform to incite hatred and social unrest. “Such individuals must be dealt with according to the law, particularly those who act as ‘guns for hire,’” the court remarked.

The PIL filed by the petitioner accused the police of making indiscriminate arrests of social media activists, particularly targeting critics of the government or those not aligned with the current ruling party. The petitioner pointed to multiple FIRs filed against such individuals as evidence of this alleged pattern.

The PIL called for judicial intervention to stop these arbitrary arrests and demanded an investigation into police conduct, arguing that these actions violated the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, making them unlawful.

The High Court, however, dismissed these claims, noting that the petition did not meet the criteria for a valid PIL. The court emphasized that PILs are meant to safeguard the rights of marginalized and disadvantaged groups who lack access to justice, rather than individuals who are capable of seeking legal remedies on their own.

“It can be seen that the present petition has been filed to espouse cause not of persons who are downtrodden, or belong to an economically weaker section of the society, who are incapable of approaching the Courts for protecting their rights or challenging the action of the State, rather, the petitioner seeks to espouse the cause of a community of social media activists as they are called, who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either marginalised or suffer an economic handicap, and cannot take resort to the remedies which are otherwise available to them in law,” the bench noted.

The court rejected the PIL, stating that the “petition is misconceived and seems to have been filed with political motives.” The petitioner was ordered to deposit ₹50,000 with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within one month. The amount is to be utilized for the benefit of children with visual or hearing impairments.