New Delhi: The Hyderabad police have booked the “head of Meta India” as well as several Facebook and Instagram accounts over content targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted in connection with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) stir over the NEET paper leak.
This comes days after multiple X accounts received notices from Delhi police for sharing “objectionable and derogatory content” relating to constitutional heads. The police also registered an FIR in connection with the same.
Further, Noida police booked a woman for “objectionable” remarks against the PM. The video was widely shared across social media platforms.
In the case of Meta accounts, an FIR was registered under sections of the IT Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Hyderabad Wednesday. The complainant, T. Saikiran Goud, is a Telangana BJP worker and local resident.
Goud told news agency ANI Friday, “20 social media handles are morphing PM’s photos and videos at the CJP protest, and we saw all this morphed content on social media…This is not the correct way you people are protesting, and these handles are not of the NEET students… Everyone knows opposition parties are funding these guys… to create negative content on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”
ThePrint has accessed the FIR, which details Goud’s complaint.
Meta India has so far not released any statement on the matter.
ThePrint reached Hyderabad DCP (cyber crime) Aravind Babu via calls and texts for a comment but had not received a response by the time of publication.
Goud says in his complaint that while surfing social media, he found reels that were objectionable and contained morphed images. He sought an investigation into Instagram and Facebook accounts “allegedly publishing content detrimental to the sovereignty, integrity and public order of India”.
“Seeking an investigation into certain Instagram accounts that have allegedly been publishing and circulating content which, in our opinion, is derogatory towards the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and appears to promote narratives that may be prejudicial to the sovereignty, integrity and public order of the nation,” the complaint states.
It adds: “The content is found to incite hatred or violence, spread misinformation, promote enmity, threaten national security, or otherwise violate applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Information Technology Act, or any other law, I request that appropriate legal action be initiated against the persons responsible.”
In his complaint, Goud attached 20 URLs which he claims were “objectionable”. Several of these posts are no longer available on social media platforms. On Instagram, some of the URLs displayed the message: “Post not available in India. This is because we complied with a legal request to restrict this content.”
Goud has asked the police to preserve electronic evidence relating to the Instagram and Facebook accounts and posts, and to identify the individuals operating these accounts through appropriate legal procedures. “Conduct a thorough investigation into whether the content violates any provisions of Indian law. Coordinate with Meta to obtain the necessary account details and preserve relevant digital evidence, if required,” his complaint states.
It goes on to add: “Take appropriate legal action if any cognisable offence is found to have been committed. And also take strict action on Meta as they are allowing these types of morphed reels in their platform. I am enclosing the URLs of the posts and can also provide screenshots or any additional information required for the investigation.”
N.V. Subhash, BJP’s chief spokesperson and media in-charge for Telangana, told ThePrint that there is “no immunity for digital abuse”.
In a statement, Subhash demanded immediate and exemplary legal action against those responsible for creating, disseminating and amplifying morphed, abusive and derogatory content targeting Modi during the CJP-led agitation, asserting that “freedom of speech can never become a licence for organised abuse and character assassination”.
At the heart of this issue, he said, lies a fundamental constitutional question—does repeated and organised public abuse directed at a constitutional office-holder fall within the ambit of free speech or does it amount to actionable misconduct? “The answer lies in the Constitution itself.”
“Meta may own the platform, but it certainly does not own India’s democratic values. No multinational corporation enjoys immunity from the laws of this country. If digital platforms fail to act responsibly despite being repeatedly alerted to objectionable content, they too must be held accountable in accordance with the law,” he said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: At Jantar Mantar protest, hand-held fans do more than beat the heat