The NTK is a Tamil Nadu-based political party led by Seeman, a former actor-turned-politician known for championing Tamil nationalist causes.

“This Court is conscious that in a constitutional democracy, the right to freedom of speech and expression occupies a cherished position. Equally, such freedom is not absolute and remains subject to the reasonable restrictions recognised under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India…The law does not permit publication of content which may amount to commission of cognisable offences merely because the subject matter concerns a political personality. Conversely, the investigating agency cannot adopt different standards while responding to complaints depending upon the political identity of the individuals involved,” the court said on July 28.

The petition stemmed from allegations that YouTube videos and other social media posts featuring morphed images and abusive language against Seeman had remained online despite a complaint to the police. Directing the cyber crime police to proceed with the investigation, the high court also ordered preservation of electronic evidence and identification of the digital sources behind the impugned content.

Justice Victoria L Gowri said that the freedom of speech does not protect online content amounting to crime. (Image enhanced using AI)

Complaint over allegedly offensive videos

According to the petition, Thirumurugan alleged that respondents identified as social media content creators had published and circulated online videos ridiculing Seeman through satire, sarcasm and offensive personal attacks.

He claimed that one YouTube video used morphed images of the political leader along with abusive and derogatory expressions in Tamil. The petitioner argued that the online content crossed the permissible limits of political criticism and amounted to slanderous and indecent material intended to insult and defame Seeman.

After coming across the online videos, he submitted a complaint on July 2 before the superintendent of police, the commissioner of police and the cyber crime police station in Madurai, seeking criminal action against those responsible. Alleging that no effective action followed, he approached the high court.
State says complaint already taken on file

Appearing for the state, the government advocate (Criminal Side) informed the court that the complaint had already been registered on July 25. The state further submitted that summonses had been issued to the petitioner on July 16, July 20 and July 24 requiring his appearance for enquiry.

According to the police, the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation, preventing the enquiry from progressing expeditiously. The petitioner’s counsel disputed this claim, contending that the allegation of non-cooperation was factually incorrect.

Delay can erase crucial digital evidence

• The court observed that although the police claimed to have registered a community service register entry later, the records showed that the complaint had not been acted upon with the promptness expected in cases involving digital publications.
• It added that delays in cyber investigations can seriously undermine criminal probes.
• “In cyber-related offences, delay often results in disappearance of electronic evidence, alteration of online content and difficulty in tracing digital footprints. Therefore, prompt intervention by the investigating agency assumes considerable significance,” the court observed.
• The judge further said that the investigating agency’s primary responsibility at this stage was not to determine the correctness of the allegations but to identify the digital source of the disputed material, preserve electronic records and proceed with an impartial investigation based on the evidence collected.
• The court added that consistency in law enforcement is an indispensable component of the rule of law and that neutrality of the police forms the foundation of public confidence in the criminal justice administration.
• “Whenever allegations are made regarding dissemination of unlawful online content attracting penal consequences, the investigating agency is expected to respond with equal promptitude irrespective of whether the complaint pertains to members of the ruling party, the opposition or any other political organisation,” the court said.

Disposing of the writ petition, the high court directed the inspector of police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai District, to process the complaint expeditiously in accordance with law. The investigating officer was also directed to identify the relevant social media accounts, YouTube channels, URLs, user identifiers and other digital particulars linked to the disputed publications.

The court further ordered immediate preservation of electronic evidence and all relevant digital records in accordance with the Information Technology Act, 2000, and other applicable laws. It directed the police to initiate appropriate legal action if the investigation disclosed commission of any cognisable offence and, wherever legally permissible, seek removal or disabling of the impugned online content through the competent authority or intermediary.

Clarifying that the investigation must proceed independently on its own merits, the court posted the matter for reporting compliance on July 29.