This case involves a complaint filed by Vinay Rai against Facebook, other social media websites, and their publishers for hosting inflammatory and obscene content online. Rai, a journalist, submitted printouts of objectionable content from the websites as evidence. Four witnesses supported the complaint that the content promoted religious disharmony and could undermine India's secular values. The court found that much of the content violated free speech limits and laws around obscenity. The publishers were summoned to face trial for related offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

1. A Presentation On:
The Curious Case Of:
VINAY RAI
V/S
FACEBOOK INDIA, AND OTHERS
A criminal complaint in the Patiala House
Court of New Delhi, Complaint Case No. 136
of 2011.
IN THE COURT OF SUDESH KUMAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.

2. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE
• The case deals with outrageous and extremely malicious content posted
on the social media websites mentioned before.
• One, Mr. Vinay Rai, a vigilante, a Senior Journalist and the incumbent
Editor of an Urdu daily , ‘Akbari’ filed a complaint in the Court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
• The complaint filed under section 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295 (A), 298,
109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. Against the accused persons who are
publishers websites hosting per-se inflammatory, unacceptable and
highly degrading and obscene content.
• The complainant has further stated that the Social Networking Websites
are meant only for providing content with respect to educational,
historical, research material and entertainment work etc. as part of their
commercial activities for social purposes.
• The Complainant seeks prosecution of the persons responsible for the
management of these websites under the sections mentioned above
and thereby seeks conviction.

3. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE
• Case filed U/s 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and120-B
IPC heard in the Court of Mr.Sudesh Kumar Metropolitan Magistrate of
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi;
• Mr. Vinay Rai gave pre-summoning evidence in the form of the firsthand
printouts from the said websites having published objectionable and
obscene content, alleged to bring about communal disharmony and also
which could destroy the secular fabric of India. This evidence was
submitted to the Court in a well-guarded envelope as a part of the social-responsibility
of Mr.Vinay Rai and other witnesses.
• Four witnesses were examined supporting the complaint in question.
• The witnesses particularly belonged to different socio-cultural sects,
following different religions. Mr. Rohit Mammen (a self-proclaimed
Orthodox Christian), Dr. Aziz Ahmad Khan (a P.HD scholar of Urdu), Mr.
Rahul Agrawal and Mr. Vinay Rai himself.
• All of the four witnesses vouched for the fact that they are persons who
strongly believe in the Doctrine of Secularity and thereby would go to any
extent to maintain peace and communal harmony in the Country.

4. Continued…
• Complainant witness was examined in pre summoning evidence
and the pre summoning evidence was closed. As the addresses of
most of the respondents are beyond the jurisdiction of this court,
an enquiry report U/s 202 Cr. PC was sought from the SHO
concerned regarding the authenticity of documents as filed in the
court.
• SHO PS Tughlak Road has furnished this enquiry report, after going
through as many as 60 internet generated printouts which were
handed over by the Complainant to the Court as evidence, the
Judge found that printouts as furnished and exhibited on bare
perusal are found to be obscene, lascivious, indecent and shocking.
The printouts shown are totally degrading and demeaning.
• He further held that the pictures are blasphemous towards all the
religions and the printouts contain obscene and derogatory articles
pertaining to Prophet Mohammed, Jesus and various Hindu God
and Godesses. There are defamatory and obscene articles
pertaining to various Indian political leaders.

5. ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE.
• Offences of publishing blasphemous and
highly demeaning and derogatory content on
websites which have the potential of harming
the National Integrity of the country and its
secular fabric thereof.
• Unruly and unethical use of the Freedom of
Free Speech and Expression U/s 19 of the
Constitution of India.
• Whether there is violation of Sections 153 (A),
153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500
and120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

6. JUDGEMENT.
 The Judge held that, “ I am satisfied that the said contents produced on record by
the complainant and which were available on various websites are not protected
by the doctrine of free speech of expression under our Constitution. In fact much
content fell foul of Provisions of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.”
 He further stated that, “it is clear that there is prima facie material on record
against the accused persons for committing offences U/s 292/293/120 IPC and
they are liable to be summoned for facing trial for the same.”
 “from the testimony of these witnesses examined on record belonging to three
different religions alongwith the material produced on record, it is evident that the
same promotes enmity between different groups and religions, which is certainly
prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and communal harmony.”
 In the concluding lines of the Judgement, he also stated that he had taken into
consideration the Complainant’s counsel’s argument that the Govt. of India seems
to have turned a blind eye towards such offensive and degrading content on
websites are a live threat towards NATIONAL INTEGRITY, et a copy of this Order be
also sent to the Government of India through the Secretary (Information and
Technology), Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Law) for taking the immediate
appropriate steps in this regard and file a report on the next date of hearing.

7. IPC Sections under which summon
issued
• U/sub-clause [1] any book, paper, pamphlet, writing etc is considered obscene
if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest…
• U/sub-clause [2] Whoever– sells or publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into
circulation… shall be considered as an offence committed under this section
Sec. 292 (Sale,
etc., of
obscene
books, etc.)
• Whoever sells, exhibits or circulates to any person under the
age of 20 years any such obscene object shall be punished
with either imprisonment or fine or both.
Sec. 293 (Sale,
etc., of obscene
objects to
young person)
• Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be
likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of
an offence which is punishable and voluntarily
conceals, by an act or legal omission the existence of a
design to commit such an offence.
Sec. 120-b
(Punishment of
criminal conspiracy)

8. Media Interpretation of the Case
Firstpost.com
• “Vinay Rai vs Facebook: Govt uses courts to censor the Internet”
• The government is back to curbing online portals and social networking
sites; this time, via the judiciary.
• “Sibal not a lone crusader for internet censorship” Vinay Rai and Aijaz
Ashraf Qazmi also seek shutting down of ‘erring’ websites.
The Hindu
• “The curious case of Vinay Rai”
• CENSORING THE INTERNET: A blanket censorship of content is squarely in
violation of the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
• it is of great concern that the mechanisms provided under Indian cyber
law, namely, the take-down provisions are not being invoked either by the
government or by litigants such as Vinay Rai who prefer criminal
prosecution over sending an email to a website asking them to disable
offending content.

9. ANALYSIS
• A vigilante like Mr. Vinay Rai who happens to be a journalist is no
doubt a boon to the society. Especially a society which fully
immersed in the frivolous waves of “Social-Media Networking”.
Freedom of free speech and expression find a great usage in this
arena. Liberty of expressing one’s own views and thoughts is widely
practiced through these websites. But, with liberty comes a great
deal of responsibility too. Liberty involves a social contract and not
just personal liberty and thus the term SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
comes into picture. Nothing is over and above law and that under
the realm of law and there is pursuit of happiness.
• In the impugned case, the Complainant raised a very commonly
noticed but seldom expressed or for that matter revolted about;
topic which was the public exhibition of obscene, unruly,
derogatory and malafide content on Social-media websites. He also
submitted certain print-outs which were regarded as “evidences”
against the accused websites. This gesture was thus laudable
because Court was brought to take cognizance on such a matter.

10. Continued…
• But, in regard with this case a bone of contention is raised as to the
matter that remedy was seeked for from a wrong platform. Many
say that Mr. Vinay Rai and his legal representatives should have
invoked the sections of The Information Technology Act, 2000 in
order to ensure proper cognizance in the matter.
• Also, for the fact that a first hand complain was to be directed
towards the redressal forums of the websites first, before going to
file a complaint in the Court.
• The laws has struggled to adapt to social media legal scholars,
judges and ethicists say that social media is also creating a range of
new challenges for law enforcement. In some cases, the flood of
digital information has overwhelmed investigators

11. Conclusion
Famous essayist A.G Gardiner in his Essay “On the Rule of the Road” quoted;
“There are a lot of people in the world, and I have to accommodate my
liberty to their liberties.”
Rightly so, with every set of responsibilities comes another set of duties which should duly be
taken care of by the countrymen. In the case of Vinay Rai v/s Facebook and Others; the impugned
websites made unethical use of the freedom of free speech and expression by publishing and
exhibiting notorious, obscene, derogatory content which creates a harmful effect on the viewers
and negatively effects their perspective. Blasphemous content which is a live threat to the
communal harmony of the country and which has the potential to damage the secular fabric of
India was also put up on these websites. Irrespective of the intention of the publishers, any harmful
caused by such objectionable and abusive content can be taken into cognizance via the principle of
‘Absolute Liability’. Through this case, Vinay Rai ignited a major controversy over free speech on
the Internet in India with a lawsuit alleging criminal negligence by Google, Facebook and other
companies for not removing objectionable material from their sites and thus there seems to be an
uprise in the Online-Content-Crusaders which is mainly due to the gross violations of public law.
The judgement involved in this case took strict cognizance against this issue and also tried to raise a
question on the Governmental vigilance on such websites.
Democracy is a give and take between people in which there is a notion of shared
responsibilities and thus social control becomes a shared social responsibility.

12. “Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of
Propaganda