The Allahabad High Court has made a significant ruling in a case involving the interpretation of Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, stating that simply liking a post on social media does not amount to publishing or transmitting content under the law. This ruling came as the court quashed a case against a man named Imran Khan, who had liked a post by Chaudhari Farhan Usman, a social media user involved in organizing a protest.

The IT Act's Section 67 criminalizes the publishing or transmission of "lascivious" content or material that appeals to a person's "prurient interest." However, the court observed that liking a post on social media cannot be considered an act of publication or transmission, as outlined in the law.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava, delivering the verdict on April 17, explained that the act of liking a post does not constitute "publishing" or "transmitting" material. He stated, "A post or message can be said to be published when it is posted, and can be said to be transmitted when it is shared or retweeted." The judge emphasized that liking a post alone does not fall within the scope of Section 67.

The case arose when Imran Khan was booked by the police for liking a post by Usman, who had shared information about a protest gathering near the Agra collectorate aimed at submitting a memorandum to the President of India. The authorities accused Khan of inciting an unlawful assembly, claiming that the post resulted in a gathering of approximately 600-700 individuals from the Muslim community without prior permission.

Despite the police charges, the court clarified that merely liking the post could not lead to a violation of Section 67. "Liking a post will not amount to publishing or transmitting the post, therefore, merely liking a post will not attract Section 67 I.T. Act," Justice Srivastava ruled, as reported by Bar and Bench.

Additionally, the court ruled that Section 67 is meant to address obscene content, not provocative material. Justice Srivastava pointed out that the terms "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest" refer specifically to material related to sexual desire and interest, excluding provocative content from its ambit. Therefore, the judge held that Section 67 of the IT Act cannot be invoked for content that is merely provocative in nature.