Misleading Social Media Posts Violate Right to Life

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Aaradhya Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Others (2026), held that any misleading material posted on Facebook or other social media platforms that is found to be false, malicious, and intended at damaging the reputation or invading the privacy of an individual constitutes a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). The Court directed the parent company of Facebook to block or take down the post and photographs of the minor petitioner.

What was the Background of Aaradhya Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Others (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by a minor girl residing with her mother at her maternal home following her father's death. 
• The petitioner alleged that her grandparents had posted a misleading Facebook post falsely claiming she was missing and announcing a reward of Rs. 1 lakh for anyone who traced her. 
• The post led to various unknown and unwanted individuals visiting her home, causing disturbance and threatening her personal safety and liberty. 
• The petition was filed seeking adequate protection from such unknown persons and removal of the misleading content. 
• The respondents denied the allegations, submitting that the grandmother had already passed away and that the grandfather, a 70-year-old man, had neither uploaded any such post nor offered any reward. 
• The respondents further contended that the petition was filed solely to harass the respondents.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that posting misleading material on social media, electronic, or print media amounts to a violation of personal rights, dignity, and reputation of an individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court emphasized that social media regulation is essential to balance freedom of expression with the dignity and rights of vulnerable groups, and that a combination of robust legal frameworks, technological solutions, digital literacy, and ethical practices can ensure accountability and foster a safe online ecosystem. 
• The Court referred to Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which mandates intermediaries such as Facebook and X to publish rules prohibiting users from posting patently false or misleading information, impersonation, defamatory content, content invading privacy, gender harassment, and similar material. 
• The Court noted that no such adequate rules had been framed or enforced by Facebook, which had allowed the misleading information about the petitioner to remain on the platform, causing hindrance to her personal liberty. 
• Since the posting of the material remained disputed by the respondents, the Court directed Facebook's parent company to take appropriate action to block or remove the post and photographs of the minor petitioner. 
• The petition was accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be sent to the registered office of the parent company of Facebook.

What is Article 21 of the COI? 

About:  

• Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right provided under Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950 and provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike, and is also considered the "Heart of Fundamental Rights." 
• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), the Supreme Court through Justice P. Bhagwati held that Article 21 "embodies constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society."

Essential Elements of Article 21: 

• Right to Life: Article 21 guarantees every person the right to life and it encompasses not only the right to existence but also the right to lead a meaningful and dignified life. 
• Personal Liberty: It ensures protection of personal liberty and simultaneously safeguards individuals against arbitrary or unlawful detention, arrest, or imprisonment, guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary state action. 
• Procedure Established by Law: It allows for the deprivation of life or personal liberty, but only according to a procedure established by law. This means that any restriction on these rights must be in accordance with laws that are fair, just, and reasonable.

Jurisprudential evolution of Article 21:

The jurisprudential development of Article 21 started from the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950) and gained momentum with the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). 

A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950): 

• In this case, the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was in question. 
• A bench of 6 judges held that the word 'due' is not used in Article 21; instead the words used are 'procedure established by law', and hence the Court will follow the procedure established by law only. 
• The Court by majority held that a law cannot be held to be unconstitutional merely on the grounds that it lacked the basic principles of natural justice or was not following the due procedure of law. 
• It was also held that Article 19 and Article 21 were mutually exclusive and were not complementary to each other. 
• The minority opinion of Justice Fazl Ali was futuristic and was way ahead of time. 

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970): 

• This case is also known as the Bank Nationalisation Case. 
• In this case the Court overruled the 'mutual exclusivity' theory laid down in the A.K. Gopalan case. 
• The Court struck down the 'Object Test' and laid down the 'Effect Test', meaning that rather than looking at the object of a particular legislation, its effect must be looked into. 
• Thus, if the legislature, even at a remote stage, violated the fundamental rights of the citizens, then it was liable to be struck down. 

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): 

• The Supreme Court held that impounding anyone's passport without giving reasons was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 
• The Court held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not mutually exclusive but instead they support, strengthen, and go hand in hand with each other. 
• The Court interpreted the words "procedure established by law" as "due process." 
• The scope of personal liberty was greatly expanded and held to include all rights related to personal liberty, which could only be restricted by a procedure that was "fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary." 
• The Court further held that the law must also be just, fair, and reasonable, thereby including substantive due process within the ambit of Article 21.

Rights Covered Under Article 21: 

• Right to privacy 
• Right to go abroad 
• Right to shelter 
• Right against solitary confinement 
• Right to social justice and economic empowerment 
• Right against handcuffing 
• Right against custodial death 
• Right against delayed execution 
• Right against public hanging 
• Protection of cultural heritage 
• Right to pollution-free water and air 
• Right of every child to full development 
• Right to health and medical aid 
• Right to education 
• Protection of under-trials