Tripura High Court stays order to disclose originator of WhatsApp message with CM's fake resignation letter

The Tripura High Court recently stayed an order asking messaging app WhatsApp to reveal the originator of a chat containing a fake resignation letter by Chief Minister Manik Saha [Whatsapp LLC v. The Union of India]..A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice T Amarnath Goud, however, allowed the police to continue investigation in the first information report (FIR) registered in the matter.The Court also issued notice on WhatsApp’s petition and listed it for hearing on December 15. “In the meantime, there shall be a stay of the impugned order dated 27.05.2023. It is made clear that investigating agency is free to carry on with the investigation as regards the alleged offence,” the Court ordered..The interim order was passed on a petition filed by WhatsApp against a trial court order which had allowed a police request to direct the Nodal Officer of WhatsApp to disclose the originator of the message in question. The FIR was registered on May 25 at the New Capital Complex Police Station on a complaint alleging that a fake resignation letter attributed to the Chief Minister was being circulated on social media. Besides alleging forgery of Chief Minister Saha’s signature, the complainant also raised concern that the letter was being circulated to destroy the Chief Minister's “clean image.”.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi representing WhatsApp, acknowledged that Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (IT Rules) prescribes certain conditions under which a court can direct a significant social media intermediary to disclose the first originator of a message.However, Rohtagi noted that the proviso under this provision indicated that such an order can only be passed for the purposes of “prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of an offence relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or of incitement to an offence relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse material."It was further submitted that the second proviso mandates that no such order shall be passed in cases where other less intrusive means could be effective in identifying the originator of the information..Rohtagi argued that there was no issue of public order or imminent threat to public order in the case at hand. The senior counsel also contended that the Judicial Magistrate did not record that any such tangible threat existed in this case. He also pointed out that Rule 4 (2) of the IT Rules was invoked in this case, just two days after the FIR was filed and without indicating that there was any threat to public order..Opposing WhatsApp’s prayer for interim protection, Advocate General SS Dey argued that the messaging app did not have any locus standi to object to the disclosure of the first originator of the message. Dey also argued that none of the accused persons has approached the Court objecting to such disclosure..Having considered the rival arguments, the Court granted WhatsApp interim relief on finding that the trial court did not specifically record the extent of any threat to public order in the present case, if any, as contemplated under Rule 4(2)..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi and Advocates Raju Datta and Tejas Karia represented WhatsApp. Advocate General SS Dey and Additional Public Prosecutor S Ghosh represented the State government. Deputy Solicitor General of India B Majumdar appeared for the Union of India. Advocate A Chakrabortyy also appeared for a respondent. .[Read Order]