Court Says Admins Are Not Automatically Liable
The Lahore High Court has ruled that creating or managing a WhatsApp group does not automatically make a person criminally liable for messages posted by other members.
Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh issued the ruling while hearing a post-arrest bail petition in a cybercrime case.
The court said criminal liability must be based on a person’s own clear and identifiable actions.
It added that a person cannot be treated as an accused only because they created a group, managed it, or remained part of it.
The court also clarified that passive receipt of messages does not amount to a criminal offence.
It said that failing to leave a WhatsApp group is also not enough to create criminal responsibility.
Liability Depends on Active Sharing of Illegal Content
The Lahore High Court said responsibility may arise when a person uploads, forwards, shares, or intentionally circulates unlawful content.
The judgement also explained that WhatsApp group administrators do not usually approve messages before they are posted.
Because of this, they cannot be held responsible for every message sent by other members.
The court said an administrator may only face liability if evidence proves conspiracy, abetment, common intention, or active participation.
It also observed that reacting to a message with an emoji or showing agreement does not automatically become a criminal offence.
Similarly, an administrator’s failure to remove objectionable content does not create automatic criminal liability without further evidence.
Bail Dismissed in Case Involving Forensic Evidence
The ruling came in a case registered under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.
The suspect was accused of circulating unlawful and highly sensitive content through WhatsApp groups.
The prosecution relied on forensic evidence, including a technical analysis report.
The report allegedly linked the petitioner to offensive material found in the WhatsApp sent folder of his seized mobile phone.
The court rejected claims of evidence tampering at the bail stage.
It cited the documented chain of custody and lack of proof of unauthorized access.
The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition after finding sufficient incriminating material against the accused.
However, the court made it clear that its observations were temporary and limited to bail proceedings.
The trial court has been directed to conclude the case quickly.
