Agartala, Oct 12: Tripura High Court has granted interim relief to the messaging giant, WhatsApp LLC. A division bench led by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued an order that temporarily halts a previous directive from a lower court. The Trial Court had instructed WhatsApp to reveal the identity of the “originator” of a chat that contained a forged resignation letter allegedly attributed to Tripura’s Chief Minister, Dr. Manik Saha.
The case stems from events that unfolded on May 25 when a candidate from the Tipra Motha (TMP) party, who had contested the 2023 election but lost, shared a post on her Facebook page. This post included a screenshot of a counterfeit resignation letter dated May 22, purportedly bearing the signature of Chief Minister Saha. The accompanying comment on the post roughly translated to, “What does the future hold for them? There might be another change this time.”
However, the candidate clarified that she personally did not manage her Facebook page, and a member of her IT team was responsible for sharing the post. The investigating officer from Tripura Police revealed that the post in question was a screenshot from a WhatsApp group named “Aamader Mukkhomontri,” which translates to “Our Chief Minister” in Bengali.
The forged post gained rapid traction and drew the attention of ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers. Subsequently, a formal complaint was lodged at the New Capital Complex Police Station in Agartala on May 25, even though the post had already been removed from social media.
An FIR (First Information Report) was filed against unknown individuals, invoking various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 468 (pertaining to forgery for fraudulent purposes), Section 469 (relating to forgery with intent to damage reputation), Section 471 (pertaining to the use of forged documents as genuine), Section 500 (imposing penalties for defamation), Section 504 (intentional insult with the aim of inciting a breach of peace), and Section 120B (the penalty for criminal conspiracy).
Also Read: Mother-Daughter Duo from Assam’s Sadiya Among Victims of Bihar Train Tragedy
In addition to these, Section 66D of the Information Technology (IT) Act was invoked, which deals with penalties for cheating through personation using computer resources.
The case proceeded to the West Tripura District and Sessions Court, which directed WhatsApp to disclose the identity of the initial sender of the fake resignation letter. However, WhatsApp cited its end-to-end encryption policy and refused to reveal the originator’s identity.
In response, WhatsApp filed a writ petition with the High Court of Tripura on September 22, seeking legal recourse.
After hearing the case, the High Court observed that the Trial Court had not sufficiently addressed the issue concerning the potential threat to public order. The High Court referred to the decision in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2017, highlighting the importance of the right to privacy. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of WhatsApp, granting interim relief.
In its writ petition, WhatsApp challenged the validity of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. Additionally, it contested the impugned order dated May 27, 2023, passed in case No. 2023 NCC 044 by the First Class Judicial Magistrate of Agartala, West Tripura.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing WhatsApp LLC, referred to an order dated May 9, 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in a related case. This order suspended further proceedings related to the challenge to the 2021 Rules, which are currently sub judice before the High Court.
Rohatgi argued that Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology Rules 2021 prescribes the conditions under which a judicial order can be issued to require a significant social media intermediary to disclose the originator of a message. The provision indicates that such an order should be passed for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating, prosecuting, or punishing an offense related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or incitement to an offense related to the above.
Additionally, it pertains to offenses involving rape, sexually explicit material, or child sexual abuse material, punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years. The provision also states that no such order should be passed if other less intrusive means are available for identifying the originator.
WhatsApp argued that the application made by the investigating officer on May 27, 2023, failed to establish grounds of public order or an imminent threat to public order. The Judicial Magistrate’s order also did not mention any tangible threat to public order that would necessitate invoking Rule 4(2) to compel WhatsApp to disclose the originator of the alleged fake content.
Advocate General of Tripura, SS Dey, contested the interim relief sought by WhatsApp, arguing that WhatsApp, as an intermediary, lacks the standing to object to the Trial Court’s order. He pointed out that none of the accused persons had approached the Court objecting to such disclosure.
The case is scheduled for the next hearing on December 5.
