Creators, admins of WhatsApp groups not criminally liable for posts made by members, LHC rules

LAHORE: In a case pertaining to blasphemy, the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday ruled that the “mere creation or administration of a Whats App group does not, by itself, make the creator or administrator criminally liable for every post made by its members”. The court issued the directives while denying post-arrest bail to a man accused of uploading and sharing blasphemous content through Whats App groups. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh passed a detailed judgment on Thursday, dismissing the bail petition filed by a man booked by the Federal Investigation Agency’s now defunct Cyber Crime Wing. The case was registered on April 5, 2024 under sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-A (blasphemy offences) and 109 (abetment) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca). According to the prosecution, the petitioner was added to two WhatsApp groups where he allegedly noticed blasphemous and sacrilegious posts being shared by members. He took screenshots of some posts and approached the FIA, which initiated an inquiry. During the investigation, the FIA alleged that the petitioner had uploaded, shared and disseminated the offensive material, leading to the registration of a first information report (FIR). The petitioner’s counsel argued that his client had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution had failed to establish that he was the creator or administrator of the WhatsApp groups. He contended that mere membership of a group and recovery of a mobile phone could not prove that the petitioner had uploaded or circulated the alleged content, the order said. The counsel also challenged the reliability of the FIA’s technical analysis report, arguing that the petitioner’s mobile phone was seized on April 8, 2024, while the forensic report was prepared after over five weeks, raising questions about safe custody and chain of custody, it added. Opposing the bail plea, the FIA argued that the case was not based merely on membership