The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that merely creating, administering or being a member of a WhatsApp group does not, in itself, make a person criminally liable for content shared by other members, dismissing the post-arrest bail application of a man accused of circulating blasphemous material.
In a detailed 13-page judgement issued on Thursday, Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh held that criminal liability in such cases must be based on an individual’s own actions, such as uploading, forwarding or disseminating unlawful content, rather than their status as a group creator, administrator or member.
The ruling came while rejecting the bail plea of Syed Abdul Mannan, who has been charged under Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-A and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca).
The court held that an ordinary WhatsApp group member cannot automatically be held responsible for every message shared by others. Likewise, a group administrator’s authority is generally limited to adding or removing members and does not, by itself, create criminal liability for messages posted by other participants.
However, the judgement noted that an administrator may face criminal responsibility if a group is created for an unlawful purpose or if the administrator personally participates in uploading, forwarding or disseminating illegal content.
Examining the evidence, Justice Sheikh observed that the prosecution’s case was not based solely on the accused’s membership of the WhatsApp groups. Rather, it relied on a technical analysis report which allegedly linked the accused to the circulation of the material, with the disputed content found in the WhatsApp “sent folder” of his mobile phone.
The court also rejected the defence’s contention that delays in the forensic examination had compromised the integrity of the evidence, holding that the device had been transferred to forensic experts in sealed condition through a documented chain of custody and that the passage of time alone did not establish tampering.
Dismissing the bail application, the court clarified that its findings were tentative in nature and would not prejudice the trial, directing the trial court to proceed independently on the basis of the evidence and to expedite the proceedings.
