Introduction:
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today quashed the criminal proceedings against Rajiv Rajagopal, the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Bharti Airtel, who had been booked following a complaint lodged by a lawyer regarding the receipt of ‘obscene’ messages on his Airtel mobile number. The complaint, filed by the lawyer VK Suresh, alleged that the CEO of Bharti Airtel was responsible for the obscene messages sent to him. The Madras High Court had earlier dismissed Rajagopal’s plea to quash the proceedings, leading him to approach the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh took up the matter and issued a comprehensive order addressing the central issues of responsibility, the role of mobile service providers, and the scope of cybercrime regulations.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, argued that the CEO of Bharti Airtel, Rajiv Rajagopal, should not be held accountable for the alleged crime. He pointed out that Bharti Airtel, as a mobile service provider, is merely an intermediary and is not responsible for the content of the messages sent through its services. Under the Information Technology Act, Airtel is protected by the safe harbour clause, which shields it from liability for user-generated content. Aggarwal emphasized that the messages in question were merely posters, such as movie advertisements, that are commonly sent by mobile service providers and did not fall under the category of obscene material. He further argued that the continuation of the investigation would only provide the complainant an opportunity to agitate the matter again.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, representing the complainant VK Suresh, contended that Bharti Airtel, by providing the platform for these messages, bore some responsibility. The counsel referred to the revenue-sharing agreement between Airtel and third-party service providers who send SMS and MMS services to customers. According to the respondent’s counsel, Bharti Airtel could exercise control over the content of the messages it disseminated. The argument was made that the company should have taken preventive measures to ensure that its service was not being used for sending obscene messages, as these actions could potentially harm Airtel’s reputation and undermine customer trust.
Court’s Judgment:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court took a firm stance, quashing the criminal proceedings against Rajiv Rajagopal, the former CEO of Bharti Airtel, noting that it was unreasonable to hold him personally responsible for the alleged obscene messages. The bench questioned the Madras High Court’s conclusion and observed that the CEO, as a senior executive of a large mobile service provider, could not be held accountable for individual instances of misconduct by users of the service. The Court further emphasized that the local police had not performed a diligent investigation into the actual source of the obscene messages. The Court criticized the failure to trace the origins of the alleged cybercrime, noting that both the police and the High Court had prematurely concluded without examining the broader context or conducting a thorough investigation.
The Court also acknowledged that Bharti Airtel, in this case, was a victim of cybercrime, as the incident could potentially damage the company’s image and affect its business. The Court noted that mobile service providers, like Airtel, are intermediaries and are generally not liable for the content shared by users unless they have actual knowledge of illegal activity taking place on their platform. It stressed that the authorities should focus on identifying and tracing the individuals or agencies responsible for sending the obscene messages, rather than attributing the fault to the CEO of the company. While quashing the FIR against Rajagopal, the Court directed the Central Crime Branch, Cyber Crime Cell, Chennai, to continue its investigation into the matter and to track down those responsible for the objectionable messages.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a reminder of the importance of due process in criminal investigations, particularly in cases involving digital platforms, where the responsibility of service providers is often misunderstood or overstated. The Court emphasized that while companies must monitor the use of their services, they cannot be held liable for every action of their users, especially in the absence of concrete evidence linking the company to the unlawful act.