Open Access Research Article
SOCIAL MEDIA LAWS AND ITS IMPLICATION: IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
SOCIAL MEDIA
LAWS AND ITS IMPLICATION: IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY – DIBYAM
I. ABSTRACT
Social media, including platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram,
is a
crucial online communication
tool in modern life. It connects people globally, especially young people, and provides access to news and perspectives. However, issues like security and privacy need to be addressed to prevent erroneous
or fraudulent posts and to eradicate prejudice and social issues. Social media
laws are necessary to address the increasing number of crimes arising from overuse. Online violence is increasing
due to social media's anonymity and quack mentality. To reduce crimes like threats, harassment, and
stalking, strict social media laws are needed. With 4.48 billion
users worldwide, fake news and information spread
widely, causing public outrage and riots. The Information and Technology
Rules, 2021, were created to regulate social media, addressing concerns
of users. The Supreme Court recommended limiting
the dissemination of violent texts and videos on platforms
to prevent mob violence and lynching. Social media can be beneficial or detrimental depending on how it connects users to
loved ones. However, some users become victims of cyber attacks. Despite laws
protecting users, new laws are needed
to address this issue. Governments should take strong measures against wrongdoers and punish those responsible.
Users should be cautious when sharing
content, and social media platforms should tighten private settings.
II.
INTRODUCTION:
Social media is an online communication tool that people may use to
share, exchange, and consume information with one another,
which includes Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms, is a key and
important part of everyone's life in the modern period. The majority of people utilize these platforms to
communicate with others and to express their
thoughts, opinions, and ideas. It connects us to anybody in the globe and provides us with a rapid electronic
means of sharing our information with others. Particularly, young people are among the most common users of social media. Furthermore, social
media platform showcase news and perspectives
from around the globe. It greatly assists in keeping us updated by giving us access to everyday life
information. Although there are many advantages
to social media use, there are certain issues that need to be addressed, like security and privacy. A
single erroneous or fraudulent post made
by an individual on social media has the potential to cause harm to society. In order to eradicate prejudice
and social issues, dissemination of erroneous
and misleading information. Due to increasing number of crimes that arise from the overuse of social
media platforms, social media laws are necessary.
III.
WHY THERE
IS NEED OF SOCIAL MEDIA LAW
People of all ages are experiencing an upsurge in online violence because
of social media's anonymity and quack mentality. Social media laws are necessary
to lessen crimes involving social media, such as threats,
harassment, stalking, and harassment. For example, recent riots in
several Indian states caused by the spread
of violent false
news videos on Facebook, YouTube, and WhatsApp
resulted in remarkable damage. This is the
reason our nation needs
strict social media
regulations.
A staggering 4.48 billion people use various social media sites across
the world. A lot of content is posted and shared on different platforms due
to the high number of users on those
platforms. Because of this, fake news and other
information spread widely on these platforms, impacting public order through
a number of events of public outrage,
unrest, and communal
rioting. One recent instance is the 2020 Delhi Riots, in which people uploaded
specific footage that went
viral.
The Information and Technology Rules, 2021, were created by the government to regulate social media. These
procedures have been put in place to try
and address their concerns in cases where their rights are violated. The Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India
(2018) (9 SCC 501) case highlights the importance of regulations aimed at protecting women and children
from sexual offences,
limiting the circulation of false information, and preventing the misuse of social media platforms. The Supreme Court recommended that the government limit the dissemination of violent texts and videos on social media platforms that
could incite mob violence and lynching.[1]
IV.
SCOPE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA
In 2012, the Mumbai police detained two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, in Than's Palghar,
Maharashtra, under Section 66A of the
IT Act after one of them posted a
criticism of the Mumbai bandh on Facebook,
which was being observed in response to the death of Shiv Sena leader
Bal Thackeray. After this, they were
given bail and the charges were dropped, but
because this provision was abused, the public was outraged by their arrest. It was thought to pose a risk and
discourage people from using social media to voice
their disapproval.
A writ petition titled Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India[2],
was filed by one law student
(Shreya Singhal), together
with others, in which constitutionality of Section 66-A of the IT Act was impugned.
This provision reads as follows.
Section 66-A[3]: Punishment for sending offensive
messages through communication device etc Any person who
sends by means of computer resource
or a communication device-
a) any
information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
b) any
information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal
intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such
computer resource or a communication device.
c) any
electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance
or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about
the origin of such messages, shall b punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and with fine.
This provision is affinity with
Section 127 of the UK Communication Act, 2003.[4]
The
following constitutional issues were brought before the Supreme Court for consideration.
i.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the fundamental right to
free speech, which is violated by Section 66 A.
ii.
The wording of Section 66-A is vague and broad.
iii.
Section 66-A revokes the equality rights provided by
Article 14.
iv.
It possesses the sin of ambiguity, which restricts the
right to free speech and expression;
v.
The IT Act's Section 69A and the regulations made
under it are extra vires because they lack procedural safeguards;
vi.
The regulations and Intermediary Guidelines
established under Section 79 of the IT Act are arbitrary, unclear, and exceed
the allowable limitations stipulated in Article 19(2).
The supreme court examined Section
66A qua freedom of speech and expression given by Article 19(1)(a), and
declared that any discussion of this topic would be pointless unless the
breadth and depth of this basic right, which is guaranteed by the constitution,
are correctly appreciated from its perspective.
While doing
so, the Supreme Court issued a warning, stating that they would not be solely depending on rulings made by the US Supreme Court due
to the flexibility of Indian
restrictions that could be lawfully imposed under Article 19(I)(a). This renders US rulings inapplicable and
significantly less relevant to the Indian constitutional framework. Hurriedly adding, the Supreme
Court stated that American decisions had persuasive value and would be useful in
comprehending the true significance of this protected right because American and Indian laws differ significantly in how they
handle the substantive right to
free expression.
The Apex
Court took the help of Whitney v.
California,[5]
and held that freedom of speech and expression has the following
three essential components:
A. Discussion
B. Advocacy
C. Incitement
All forms of discussion and advocacy, including those that are
controversial, are protected
by the First Amendment's guarantee
of free speech and expression. However, once debate and
advocacy surpass the threshold of incitement,
they are no longer covered by this guarantee and are subject to reasonable restrictions as outlined in Article 19(I) (a).
The Apex Court stated that the IT Act's definition of information[6] is wide and imprecise. Aside from this, the court
stated that two obvious problems with Section
66-A can be seen upon
close inspection. The definition is comprehensive, to start with. Secondly, the concept does not
specify what information content can
be. Actually, it just refers to the medium used to spread this kind of
information. Therefore, it is evident that the
petitioners are justified when
they claim that Section 66A directly affects the public's right to know. It is very evident from a
detailed reading of Section 66 A that this
might include information about current affairs as well as scientific, literary, and creative works. It may be a
reference to harmless current affairs, or
it could be seditious or obscene that is, the marketplace of ideas that the Internet offers to people of all stripes.
The public's right to know under Article
19(1) is impacted by this provision (a). This kind of material might just irritate or inconvenience some
people, but because of the way Section 66A defines
the offence, it could be considered unlawful.
The Supreme Court believes that Section 66-A does not distinguish between inciting words that may directly cause
public disorder, state security, or other issues,
and merely discussing or advocating a point of view that may only irritate,
inconvenience, or offend certain people.
The court granted
the petition and determined that Section 66-A clearly violates
the constitutionally protected
right to free expression by adding more restrictions to internet freedoms and making it illegal to post anything on
social media that offends
or causes inconvenience to
other people.
The Supreme
Court reaffirmed that restrictions on free speech must be directly related to
one of the eight specified subject topics listed in Article 19(2).[7] A limitation
cannot be deemed reasonable in the sense defined by Article 19 (2) if it has no
direct connection to the accomplishment of any of the designated subject
topics. Based on Indian and US judicial precedence on the matter, the court
examined four of the eight aspects of Article 19(2) that the Union of India had
invoked in its defence to determine if Section 66A had any close link with any
of these limits. These are –
a.
Public Order: The Supreme Court relied on the ruling
in Ramesh Thaper v. State of Madras,[8]
wherein the concept of "public order" was defined as a peaceful
and harmonious state among the constituents
of a political society. The Ram Manohar
Lohia v. State of Bihar[9]
ruling was also cited, in which the supreme court used the concept
of three concentric circles to illustrate the differences: "public order" was narrower
than "law and order," "security of the state" was narrowest, and so on. Therefore, disturbing public order is more serious
than just breaching the law or interfering
with "law and order." In the current case, the Supreme Court argued that these factors ought to
be used and summed them up as
follows: Does a specific act disrupt the community's current way of life, or does it only have an
impact on the individual, leaving the peace of society
intact. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is evident from these tests that the purpose of Section
66A is to penalize anyone who uses the Internet
to distribute any information
that is covered by the sub-clause of Section 66A. The information so distributed may be for one person, a group of
people, or the wider public,
but this Section
does not distinguish between the three. The Supreme
Court further noted that there was no connection between
the activity that would follow the communication and the message that needed
to be prohibited. When speech is restricted for reasons of public order, the legislation imposing the restriction must pass the clear and present danger
test. Any information that is shared
must have the capacity to cause or encourage public disorder and must be directly related
to such disorder.
b. Defamation: According to the Supreme Court, Section
66-A does not in any
way target defamatory statements. When a comment
harms someone's reputation, it may be deemed defamatory in nature. A comment may offend someone severely,
irritate them, or cause them inconvenience without harming his reputation.
c. Decency or Morality:
The Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "decency
and morality" cannot be covered by Section 66A and that the terms "grossly offensive" or
"annoying" in the Section do not necessarily
have to be obscene. In Section 66 A, the word "obscene" is conspicuously absent.
d.
Incitement to an offence: The Supreme Court decided
that there is no direct
connection between the provisions of Section 66-A and the encouragement to commit an offence that would allow for the restriction of free speech.
It is not necessary for the information shared online to be
information that could agitate anyone in the
community. The Internet
can be used as a medium for written communications that are only classified as "advocacy" or "discussion"
of a specific viewpoint and may not inspire criminal activity. The court reinforced its position by ruling that the simple act of causing fear, annoyance, or other
negative emotions, or of being
blatantly disrespectful or menacing, does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. They
are not crimes in and of themselves, though they might be components of some IPC offences.
It was established that Section 66 A must violate Article 19(1) (a) since it has nothing to do with
"incitement to an offence" and
severely restricts the type of content
that can be sent online based on factors such as whether
it is extremely offensive, bothersome, inconvenient, or unrelated to
any of the eight subjects listed in
Article 19(2). Article 19(2) would not save such a clause, therefore
it is unlawful. The request
of the Additional Solicitor General to read each of the topics covered
in Article 19(2) into Section 66 A in
an effort to preserve its constitutionality was denied by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds that such an
effort is not feasible for the
straightforward reason that some of the topics
covered by Article 19(2) in Section 69A were provided for when the legislature meant to do so. It would be equivalent to reading something
into this section that was
never meant to be read.
Regarding the objection to Article 19(1), the Supreme
Court determined that Section
66A constitutes an overbroad and imprecise crime, which cannot be rescued by Article 19(2).It
is not permissible to restrict or deny the rights under Article
19(1)(a) based on the greater dissemination of information over the internet.
V. CHALLENGE UNDER ARTICLE 14
“Equality before law - The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory
of India[10].”
The petitioner contended that there is no discernible difference between speech on the internet and speech on print, broadcast,
or real-time media. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument. The court decided
that there is a clear discernible difference: anyone can express their
opinions on the internet with very
little or no cost. The argument that content published on a website spreads like wildfire and has the
potential to reach millions of people worldwide was acknowledged by the court. If the petitioners
were correct, then every other violation made possible by the Information Technology Act—which isn't the topic of the current petitions—would also be covered by
this Article 14 defence. The court
decided that it must be made evident that speech on the internet differs comprehensibly from speech on other media, for
which distinct crimes can undoubtedly be established by law. Consequently, the challenge based on Article
14 must be rejected.[11]
VI.
CRIMES RELATED
TO SOCIAL MEDIA
i.
Stalking,
Cyber bulling, Online Threats:
Social media crimes that are most
frequently reported and observed involve
someone making threats,
harassing, stalking, and
intimidating other people. Although many of these crimes go unpunished or are not taken seriously, victims of these kinds of crimes frequently are unsure about when to report them to the authorities.[12]
In real life, many people especially
women have experienced stalking. These recognized
as online harassment or cyber stalking on social media. There are numerous instances
of cyber stalking
converting into physical stalking, where there is an elevated danger of bodily harm. While it is true
that both men and women can become victims
of online stalking.[13]
ii.
Fraud:
Even while posting a humiliating
status update on a friend's social media account could be okay among friends, it is technically
illegal. Likewise, depending on the acts taken by the person using a fake or impersonator account, setting one up in order to deceive
others (as opposed
to staying anonymous) may be penalized as fraud.[14]
iii.
Fake
Profile:
Making a fake profile
of someone and publishing objectionable material, such as altered photos,
on it. Or threatening people
by using fake accounts on social media is also illegal and very common these days in
society.[15]
iv.
Cyber Defamation:
In today's time, it is very easy to
defame anyone through social media,
where anyone can share any false news with others. It basically means that someone
intentionally or deliberately posts false information about another person online in an attempt
to harm or slander that person's reputation.
v.
Social networking burgling:
However,
using social media to find out when a possible
target is on vacation is a popular practise among burglars. Potential burglars are able to identify
when you will be away for an extended amount of time if your vacation status updates are visible to the public rather than just friends.
For
example, when a couple posted on social media that they were leaving on vacation, burglars used that information to identify their targets and have enough
time to plan their theft of items from the property.
VII. REMEDIES UNDER INDIAN LAW CONCERNING CRIME
VIA SOCIAL MEDIA:
The previous discussion over the implementation of the IPC for the prosecution of cyber criminals has taken
on a new significance with the passing
of the IT Act by Parliament. This Act, which was created
with the intention
of establishing a safe electronic environment, addresses concerns
related to this environment, including offences involving information
technology and violations of
electronic transaction laws. Additionally, it aims to establish a number of authorities to support the
regulation of an IT regime. Furthermore,
it modifies a few other statutes in addition to the IPC.[16]
In India, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is the main legislation addressing issues with
cybercrime and e-commerce. This Act's
primary goal is to give transactions executed by electronic data transfers or any other method legal
standing instead of paper-based communication. Penalties
for a variety of frauds and offences
involving computers or networks are specified
under this statute (including social media crime).[17]
The following is a list of some sections of, The Information Technology Act, 2000:
·
Section 66-A[18]:
Anyone who sends disrespectful messages or posts anything on social media may
be arrested under this section of the IT Act. Also, it is offensive to share
any inaccurate or fraudulent material with the intent to create discord,
danger, hostility, insults, annoyance, inconvenience, obstruction, and criminal
intimidation. Such conduct is restricted by law, and the punishment for
offenders is three years in prison and a fine.
·
Section 69-A[19]:
This section gives the government the power to keep an eye on, decode, or
intercept any material that does not comply with government regulations. It
gives the government the authority to censor websites by using the proper
protocol. In accordance with Section 69A of the IT Act, Chinese applications
have recently been prohibited. A fine and/or imprisonment are imposed on the
person who violated the terms of this section.
·
Section 67-B[20]:
Publication or sending electronic content (via. social media) that shows children
engaging in sexually explicit activity, among other offences, is criminal.[21](example: cyber
grooming) Punishment for this, on first conviction, one faces a maximum
sentence of five years of imprisonment of any kind, along with a fine of ten
lakh rupees. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, one faces a
maximum sentence of seven years in prison of any kind, along with a fine of ten
lakh rupees.
The IPC,
1860, contains several Sections that address offences that one could do by the
means of social media. The following are some examples of the Sections that
have been identified for the same:
·
Section 124-A[22]:
It focuses on sedition, which is a crime that
incites opposing parties
to overthrow the government.
·
Section 153-A[23]: Its objective is to penalize
anyone who disparages the race, language, place of
birth, or religion of any specific
group or religion.
·
Section 295A[24]: The primary goal of this
section is to punish individuals who intentionally demean religion or religious beliefs.
·
Section 499[25] primarily addresses
defamation cases in which a person
was subject to legal repercussions for using words or writings intended to harm someone's reputation.
·
Section
505[26]: Anybody
who makes comments
that provoke public annoyance is subject to legal
action under this section of the IPC.
·
Section 506[27]: Attempting to intimidate
another person using physical force or the use of any technological device is considered an offence that carries a
sentence of a few years in jail, a fine,
or both.
·
Section
509[28]: This section addresses
the offence of disrespecting
women's modesty, which carries a one-year jail
sentence or a fine.
VIII. INDIA ENACTS MORE STRINGENT
LAWS GOVERNING SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS.[29]
In 2023 amendments to social media regulation, India is going to implement more stringent regulations for
social media sites and the information they post. The 2023 amendments to the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code, which govern
Social Media Intermediaries (SMIs), have been introduced by the Indian government. The updated
standards aim to achieve three clear goals: they will handle new issues brought
about by technological innovations; they will
guarantee an accessible, secure, and
trustworthy internet; and they will establish a unit dedicated to fact-checking digital content.
According to the new regulations, SMIs are required to
notify users about the fact that
these platforms are governed by a fact-check unit and that they "host, display, upload, publish, transmit,
store, update or share any information
in respect to any business of the Indian government that is identified as fake or false or misleading." Additionally, they have to "bring
reasonable efforts" to stop users from
publishing illegal content on their site. A grievance officer will be required to process complaints for
all SMIs within 15 days of receipt
and to acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 24 hours. According to the ministry, big
corporations like Google, Meta, and Twitter
are the target of the new regulations rather than early-stage startups.
The revised guidelines have elicited a strong
response from news organizations, who fear that they
represent yet another effort to "muzzle
the media." Those who oppose the new legislation are not buying into the government's assertions
that compliance with the revised limits is required
to "ensure an open, safe, and trusted
internet". However, the Narendra Modi government is committed to implementing the proposed social media intermediary law.
IX.
CONCLUSION
In the end, it is determined that social media can be a
blessing or a curse for everyone,
depending on how well it connects them to their loved ones. However, some users have become victims of cyber attacks.
Even if there are many laws protecting victims from wrongdoers, the necessity for new laws is never completely eliminated. Although each country has a number of laws governing social media, none of them have a single
act that is solely focused
on the subject. So that every social media user feels safe, the government should take strong measures
against the wrongdoers and punish
them for their crimes. Users should take care while sharing anything
on social media. In particular, to improve user safety, social media sites such as Instagram,
WhatsApp, and others ought to tighten
their private settings. Particularly these days, anyone may now more easily take scandalous pictures
of anyone and share them on social
media due to the support
of AI algorithms. Because of this type of
defamatory post, victims
experience despair.
[1] Plain English Summary of
Judgment (2018) Cow Vigilantism. Available at:
https://www.scobserver.in/reports/tehseen-poonawalla-union-of-india-tushar-gandhi-
plain-english-summary-of-judgment/ (Accessed: 18 November 2023).
[2] AIR 2015 SC 1523
[3] The Information Technology Act, Section 66-A, (2000)
[4] The genealogy of this
Section may be traced back to Section 10(2)(a) of the U.K Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935, which made
it an offence to send any message by telephone which is grossly
offensive or of an indecent,
obscene, or menacing
character. This Section was substantially incorporated in Section 66 of
the UK Post Office Act, 1953
as follows: Prohibition of sending
offensive or false telephone messages or false telegrams, etc. If any
person: (a) sends any message by telephone which
is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; (b)
sends any message by telephone, or
any telegram, which he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety
to any other person; or (c)
persistently makes telephone calls without reasonable cause and for any such purpose as aforesaid, he shall be liable
on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding
ten pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one month, or to both.
This Section in turn was
replaced by Section 49 of the British Telecommunication Act, 1981 and Section 43 of the British Telecommunication
Act, 1984. In its present form in the UK, it is Section 127 of the
Telecommunication Act, 2003 which is relevant and which is as follows:-
127. Improper use of public
electronic communications network: A person is guilty of an offence if he sends by means of a public electronic
communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive
or of an indecent, obscene
or menacing character; or causes any such
message or matter to be so sent.
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he sends by means
of a public electronic communications
network, a message that he knows to be false, causes such a message to be
sent; or persistently makes use of
a public electronic communications network.
A person guilty of an offence
under this Section
shall be liable,
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard
scale, or to both.
Sub-sections (1) and
(2) do not apply to anything
done in the course of providing
a program service (within
the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c.42)). Improper use of
public electronic communications network-
This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
(1)
A person is guilty of an offence
if he-
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter
that is grossly offensive
or of an indecent, obscene
or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message
or matter to be so sent.
(2)
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another,
he-
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network,
a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public
electronic communications network.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this Section shall be liable,
on summary conviction, to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding
level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)
Sub-sections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of
providing a program service [within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 ( c .42)]
[5] 274 U.S. 357 (1927); 71 L.Ed.
1095.
[6] Section 2 (v) explain: Information
like data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes, computer program, software and database or micro film or
computer generated micro film or computer
generated micro film.
[7] Article
19. Protection of
specific rights like freedom of speech, etc. : (2) Nothing in clause (1)'s subclause (a) shall impair
the operation of any law already in effect or
forbid the State from enacting any law that places reasonable limitations on the exercise of the rights granted by that
subclause in the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity, the State's security, friendly relations with
other States, public order, decency,
or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
[8] (1950) SCR 549
[9] (1966) SCR 709
[10] The Constitution of India, Art. 14, 1950
[11] DR. FAROOQ AHMAD, CYBER
LAW IN INDIA 394 (5th ed. 2019)
[12] (No date) Social Media Crimes. Available
at: https://cpms- cid.wb.gov.in/portal/cybercrime/social-media- crimes.html#:~:text=The%20most%20commonly%20reported%20and,when%20to%
20call%20the%20police. (Accessed: 18 November 2023).
[13] V.D.DUDEJA, CYBER
CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 41 (ed. 2018)
[14] Social Media Crimes. Available
at: https://cpms- cid.wb.gov.in/portal/cybercrime/social-media- crimes.html#:~:text=The%20most%20commonly%20reported%20and,when%20to%
20call%20the%20police. (Accessed: 18 November 2023).
[15] Social Media Crimes. Available at: https://cpms- cid.wb.gov.in/portal/cybercrime/social-media- crimes.html#:~:text=The%20most%20commonly%20reported%20and,when%20to%
20call%20the%20police. (Accessed: 18 November 2023).
[16] NANDAN KAMATH, LAW
RELATING TO COMPUTERS INTERNET & E-
COMMERCE 227 (5th ed. 2012)
[17] Social Media Laws and its Implications (2023), Free Law, Available at: https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Social-Media-Laws-and-its- Implications#:~:text=Social%20Media%20Laws%20are%20required,for%20protectin
g%20the%20prohibited%20content. (Accessed: 18 November 2023).
[18] The Information Technology Act, Section 66-A, 2000
[19] The Information Technology Act, Section 69-A, 2000
[20] The Information Technology Act, Section 67-B, 2000
[21] Social Media Laws and its Implications (2023), Free Law, Available at: https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Social-Media-Laws-and-its- Implications#:~:text=Social%20Media%20Laws%20are%20required,for%20protectin g
[22] IPC, Section 124-A, 1860
[23] IPC, Section 153-A, 1860
[24] IPC, Section 295-A, 1860
[25] IPC, Section 499, 1860
[26] IPC, Section 505, 1860
[27] IPC, Section 506, 1860
[28] IPC, Section 509, 1860
[29] India introduces stricter
regulation for social media platforms (2023), dig. watch, Available at: https://dig.watch/updates/india-introduces-stricter-regulation-for-social-media
platforms#:~:text=The%20new%20rules%20stipulate%20that,unit’%20that%20governs%20these%20platforms
(Accessed: 18
November 2023).
Article Information
SOCIAL MEDIA LAWS AND ITS IMPLICATION: IN INDIA
Authors: DIAM
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/11/23
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.