WhatsApp Group Messages Treated as Public Utterances: Punjab and Haryana High Court Clarifies Law
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that messages posted on a WhatsApp group can amount to an “utterance in a public place” under Section 294 of the IPC. The ruling came in an obscenity case arising from a comment posted in a housing society group.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal delivered the judgement while hearing a plea seeking quashing of an FIR. The case involved allegations under Sections 294, 354-A and 509 of the IPC relating to obscenity, sexual harassment and insulting the modesty of a woman.
The complaint was filed by a woman who objected to a remark posted by Dheeraj Gupta in a residents’ WhatsApp group in Gurugram. The comment read, “jaane kitne dinon ke baad society me abb chand nikla,” in response to her photograph shared through a profile link.
The accused argued that the remark was light-hearted and not obscene. His counsel submitted that the words were neither sexually coloured nor intended to insult anyone. It was also contended that the comment did not satisfy the legal ingredients of the alleged offences.
On the other hand, the complainant stated that she was a respected school principal and that the comment formed part of a larger attempt to pressure her to withdraw from contesting the post of President of the Residents’ Welfare Association.
The Court first examined whether a WhatsApp group message could be treated as a public utterance. It observed that private chats are end-to-end encrypted and accessible only to two individuals. However, messages posted in a group are visible to all members.
“Such messages cannot be termed private or personal and posting messages in the WhatsApp group would amount to making an ‘utterance in a public place’ within the meaning of Section 294 IPC,” the Court held.
However, the judge clarified that not every offensive or mocking statement amounts to obscenity. The Court stressed that while defining obscenity, courts must consider contemporary social standards and changing views.
“In order to attract the culpability of Section 294 IPC, the words used must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the mind of the person who heard the word or saw them, thus causing annoyance,” the Court observed.
After reviewing the message and accompanying emojis, the Court concluded that the comment was not in good taste but did not meet the threshold of obscenity. It noted that the line was inspired by a popular Bollywood song and lacked sexual content.
The Court also found that the ingredients of sexual harassment were not made out. It observed that the complainant was not even a member of the group where the comment was posted and that the remark did not carry sexual undertones.
Similarly, the offence under Section 509 IPC was not attracted, as there was no clear intention to insult the woman’s modesty. The Court stated that mere mocking words without a link to sexual dignity cannot constitute the offence.
Holding that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose, the Court quashed the FIR. It remarked that criminal trials should not proceed on insufficient grounds, as they only add to the burden of the judicial system.
