Hyd police book cases against Meta India Head over posts on PM

The Hyderabad Cyber Crime police has registered two cases against some social media users and Head of Meta in India, following a complaint by BJP activists over alleged objectionable content targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The FIR was booked under Sections 66C (identity theft), 67 (publishing obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act, and 353 (2) (accused person to be competent witness), 336 (4) (forgery) of the BNS following a complaint made on July 29 by a social media core committee member of the Telangana BJP.

"The cases were booked against those who posted and how they (social platforms) allowed it," a cyber crime official told PTI on Friday.

In one case, the FIR was registered against 'users of Instagram and Facebook' mentioned in the complaint and the Head of Meta in India.

The complainant sought an investigation into certain Instagram accounts that allegedly published and circulated content derogatory toward PM Modi.

The complaint stated the content appears to promote narratives prejudicial to the nation's sovereignty, integrity and public order.

The complainant submitted details of the Instagram and Facebook post URLs.

He requested the police to preserve electronic evidence related to the social media accounts and posts, identify the individuals operating the accounts, conduct a thorough probe, and coordinate with Meta to obtain necessary account details and preserve relevant digital evidence if required.

Telangana BJP Chief Spokesperson N V Subhash on Friday demanded immediate and exemplary legal action against those responsible for creating, disseminating and amplifying morphed, abusive and derogatory content targeting PM Modi during the CJP-led NEET paper leak agitation, asserting that "freedom of speech can never become a licence for organised abuse and character assassination".

At the heart of this issue lies a "fundamental constitutional question"-- whether repeated and organised public abuse directed at a constitutional office-holder falls within the ambit of free speech or amounts to actionable misconduct, he said.

The Constitution protects liberty, but it does not legitimise lawlessness. Rights come with responsibilities and accountability necessarily follows when legal limits are allegedly breached, Subhash said in a statement.