LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that mere creation or administration of a WhatsApp group does not, by itself, make the creator or administrator criminally liable for every post made by its members.
The court passed this order in a bail application of one Syed Abdul Mannan facing a case of sharing blasphemous and sacrilegious posts, allegedly.
The court dismissed the bail as the petitioner failed to make out a case for further inquiry and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
READ ALSO: ’Protecting the privacy of your phone number’: WhatsApp will soon offer usernames
The court observed that mere failure by an administrator to remove objectionable content does not amount to dissemination or abetment.
Such inaction may become evidentially relevant when considered with other circumstances showing conscious facilitation, encouragement, common intention, conspiracy, abetment or intentional participation, or where a statutory duty to act exists, the court added.
The court remarked that liability may, however, arise where the group is created for an unlawful purpose, where the administrator himself participates in the circulation of such content, facilitates or encourages its circulation, acts in concert with others, or where common intention, conspiracy or abetment is shown from the evidence collected during the investigation.
The court said, a WhatsApp administrator may have the power to add or remove participants, but he does not ordinarily review, moderate or approve each message before it is posted, the court added.
Mere membership of a WhatsApp group, passive receipt of content, continued presence in the group, or failure to leave it does not constitute preparation, dissemination or abetment for the purposes of section 11 of PECA or section 109 PPC, the court added.
The court said criminal liability must rest on an identifiable act or legally relevant omission attributable to the member, and the intention or knowledge required by law.
Such an act may include uploading, forwarding, sharing, soliciting, storing for onward transmission, or otherwise intentionally participating in the circulation of the offensive content, the court remarked.
The court said, a person who personally uploads, forwards, sends, shares, or otherwise circulates the offending content stands on a different footing from a mere creator, administrator, or member of a WhatsApp group.
In such a case, liability is founded on the accused’s own act, not on vicarious responsibility for the act of another, the court added.
The court said, a mere emoji, brief reaction, or expression of agreement in a WhatsApp group should not, by itself, be treated as preparation or dissemination.
Whether such conduct amounts to abetment by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid under section 109 PPC would depend on the statutory offence alleged, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the reaction, and the prior or subsequent conduct of the accused and hence each case must turn on its own facts, the court added.
The court remarked that unless a statute imposes a duty to act, omission cannot readily be converted into criminal liability.
It would be unsafe to treat an administrator’s silence or inaction as dissemination in the absence of some other legally relevant circumstance, the court concluded.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments