The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that live-streaming police action on social media does not amount to obstructing a public servant in the discharge of their duties. The court quashed criminal proceedings against a driver who had been booked under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for going live on Facebook during a traffic stop.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that live-streaming police actions on social media does not amount to obstructing a public servant in the discharge of their duties, quashing criminal proceedings against a driver booked under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for going live on Facebook during a traffic stop.
The case, titled Sita Ram Sharma vs State of HP & Anr (Cr.MMO No. 363 of 2023), stemmed from an incident on August 24, 2019. The petitioner, Sita Ram Sharma, was allegedly driving without a seatbelt when police officers on traffic duty signaled him to stop.
According to the police, Sharma did not immediately comply and was later found parked near an eatery. When asked to produce vehicle documents, Sharma allegedly misbehaved and went live on Facebook, claiming he was being unfairly targeted.
The primary issue before the court was whether Sharma’s actions, particularly his Facebook live stream, constituted an offense under Section 186 IPC, which penalizes voluntary obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of public functions.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, in his judgment delivered on June 19, 2024, quashed the proceedings against Sharma, making several important observations:
- Interpretation of “Obstruction”: The court held that “obstruction” under Section 186 IPC requires more than mere passive conduct.
Justice Sharma observed: “Any action accompanied by either show of force or threat or having the effect of obstructing the public servant from carrying out his duty, would constitute ‘obstruction’ for the purpose of Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code”.
- Live-streaming Not Obstruction: The court specifically ruled that going live on Facebook and making comments does not amount to obstruction.
It stated: “Precise allegation in the case at hand against the petitioner is that he went live on Facebook and made certain comments, but certainly, such act, if any, of him, cannot be considered obstruction, if any, caused by the petitioner”.
- Lack of Physical Obstruction: The judgment emphasized that there was no allegation of physical obstruction:
“Once there is no allegation that accused used a physical force to cause any obstruction to the Police official, who admittedly after having noticed certain non-compliances on the part of the accused-petitioner, challaned him under Sections 177 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no case under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, could have been initiated against the petitioner”.
- Intent of the Facebook Post: The court interpreted Sharma’s social media activity charitably, noting:
“Rather, by making post, petitioner attempted to state that he is being unnecessarily harassed”.
This ruling underscores the necessity of distinguishing between genuine obstruction of law enforcement activities and the exercise of free speech, especially in the context of social media usage.
The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the actions of individuals are assessed fairly without compromising the authority and duties of public servants.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Police
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
