wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Group admins not accountable for content: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a civil suit for defamation against an admin of a social media group, stating that an admin cannot be made liable for defamatory statements made by any other members of the group, reports LiveLaw.

Interestingly, the court likened holding the admin of a group accountable for defamation to holding a printing press responsible for defamation for materials published by print media. The court said that “When an online platform is created, the creator thereof cannot expect any of the members thereof to indulge in defamation and defamatory statements made by any member of the group cannot make the Administrator liable therefor.” Read the full judgement here (pdf).

Note that this case was regarding materials shared on Telegram and Google Groups, but the ruling should apply to admins on WhatsApp Groups and the like as well. This is important as admins have been held responsible for content before. For example, in October last year, a WhatsApp group admin was arrested in Latur over objectionable content. Similarly, a mandate by the district magistrate of Kupwara district of Jammu & Kashmir in April held group admins responsible for all posts on their groups. In August, two youths were arrested by police in Chhattisgarh following a complaint against the admin of a WhatsApp group.

It needs to be pointed out that group admins generally don’t really have control over the flow of content in a group, and erratic platform specific rules, like WhatsApp randomly assigning a new admin if the only admin quits, makes it difficult to hold administrators accountable for the content on groups. As such, administrators could perhaps be covered under Section 79 of the IT Act which gives them some immunity from the law as intermediaries.

Note that when Section 66A was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in March, the apex court also said an intermediary needs a court order or a government order for getting content taken down. At the same time, the court also upheld Section 69 which allows the government to block websites.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Written By

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ