Lahore High Court has ruled that merely creating or administering a WhatsApp group does not automatically make a person criminally liable for every message or post shared by other members of the group. The observation was made while Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh dismissed a post arrest bail petition filed by a man accused of uploading and sharing blasphemous content through WhatsApp groups. The detailed judgment clarified the legal principles surrounding criminal liability under digital communication platforms while emphasizing that responsibility must be linked to a person’s own actions rather than their status as a group creator, administrator, or member. The case was registered on April 5, 2024 by Federal Investigation Agency’s former Cyber Crime Wing under multiple provisions of Pakistan Penal Code, including Sections 295 A, 295 B, 295 C, 298 A, Section 109 relating to abetment, and Section 11 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner had been added to two WhatsApp groups where allegedly offensive and blasphemous material was being circulated by participants. The investigation stated that the petitioner initially took screenshots of certain posts and approached Federal Investigation Agency, which subsequently initiated an inquiry. During the course of the investigation, authorities alleged that technical analysis of the petitioner’s mobile phone connected him to uploading, sharing, and disseminating the material, resulting in the registration of a first information report. Counsel representing the petitioner argued before the court that his client had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution had failed to establish he was the creator or administrator of the WhatsApp groups. The defense further maintained that simple membership in a WhatsApp group and the recovery of a mobile phone were insufficient to prove that the petitioner had personally uploaded or circulated the disputed content. It also challenged the reliability of the forensic examination, pointing out that the mobile phone was seized on April 8, 2024 while the technical report was prepared more than five weeks later, raising concerns regarding the preservation and chain of custody of the device.
Justice Sheikh examined the legal framework under Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, particularly Section 11, which criminalizes preparing or disseminating information through an information system or electronic device that promotes or is likely to promote interfaith, sectarian, or racial hatred. The judgment explained that criminal liability under the law requires establishing whether the information was prepared or disseminated electronically and whether the act was voluntary and attributable to the accused. The court observed that an ordinary member of a WhatsApp group cannot automatically be held responsible for every message shared by other participants and that liability must be based on a specific act or legally relevant omission. Similarly, the judgment stated that a WhatsApp group administrator generally has limited authority, primarily involving adding or removing members, and does not become legally responsible for every message posted by others. However, the court clarified that liability may arise if a group is established for an unlawful purpose or if the administrator personally participates in uploading, forwarding, sharing, or circulating objectionable content.
While assessing the available evidence, the court noted that the prosecution’s case was not based solely on the petitioner’s membership in WhatsApp groups. Justice Sheikh observed that the technical analysis report attributed the mobile device to the petitioner and indicated that the alleged offensive material was found in the WhatsApp sent folder on the handset. Addressing the defense’s concerns regarding the delay in forensic examination, the court held that the passage of time between seizure and analysis did not by itself establish tampering, particularly when official records showed the device had been transferred to the technical analyst in sealed condition through a documented chain of custody. Based on these findings, the court concluded that sufficient incriminating material existed against the petitioner to justify continued proceedings and dismissed the bail petition. The judgment also clarified that the observations made at the bail stage were tentative in nature and that the trial court would independently evaluate the evidence before reaching a final decision.
Follow the SPIN IDG WhatsApp Channel for updates across the Smart Pakistan Insights Network covering all of Pakistan’s technology ecosystem.
