0
LAHORE: In a case pertaining to alleged blasphemy, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that the “mere creation or administration of a WhatsApp group does not, by itself, make the creator or administrator criminally liable” for every post shared by its members.
The court made the observation while denying post-arrest bail to a man accused of uploading and sharing blasphemous content through WhatsApp groups.
Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh, in a detailed judgement issued on Thursday, dismissed the bail petition filed by the accused, who was booked by the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) now-defunct Cyber Crime Wing.
The case was registered on April 5, 2024, under Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-A (blasphemy offences) and 109 (abetment) of the Pakistan Penal Code, as well as Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca).
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was added to two WhatsApp groups where he allegedly noticed blasphemous and sacrilegious posts shared by members. He took screenshots of some of these posts and approached the FIA, which initiated an inquiry.
During the investigation, the FIA alleged that the petitioner had uploaded, shared and disseminated the offensive material, leading to the registration of the first information report (FIR).
The petitioner’s counsel argued that his client had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution had failed to establish that he was the creator or administrator of the WhatsApp groups.
He contended that mere membership of a group and the recovery of a mobile phone could not prove that the petitioner had uploaded or circulated the alleged content.
The counsel also challenged the reliability of the FIA’s technical analysis report, arguing that although the petitioner’s mobile phone was seized on April 8, 2024, the forensic report was prepared over five weeks later, raising questions about its safe custody and chain of custody.
Technical analysis
Opposing the bail plea, the FIA argued that the case was not based merely on the petitioner’s membership of WhatsApp groups.
It said technical analysis of his mobile phone linked him to the uploading and sharing of the alleged material.
Justice Sheikh examined the legal framework of Peca and observed that Section 11 criminalised the preparation or dissemination of information through an information system or device that promoted, or was likely to provoke, interfaith, sectarian or racial hatred.
The judge observed that liability under Peca required an examination of whether the information had been prepared or disseminated through an electronic device and whether the act was voluntary and attributable to the accused.
He held that a person could not be held criminally liable merely for creating or administering a WhatsApp group or for being a member of one.
However, he noted that liability could arise where a person personally uploaded, forwarded, shared or circulated objectionable content.
The judge explained that an ordinary WhatsApp group member could not automatically be blamed for every post shared by others, and criminal liability must be based on an identifiable act or a legally relevant omission.
Role of admins
Discussing the role of WhatsApp group administrators, the judge observed that an administrator normally had limited powers to add or remove members and did not automatically become responsible for every message posted by group members.
However, he added that an administrator could be held liable if a group was created for an unlawful purpose or if the administrator participated in the dissemination of any illegal content.
While examining the evidence, the judge noted that the technical analysis report attributed the petitioner’s mobile phone to him and showed that the alleged offensive material was found in the WhatsApp “sent folder” on the device.
He observed that the prosecution’s case did not rest solely on the petitioner’s membership of the WhatsApp groups but was supported by technical evidence allegedly linking him to the circulation of the content.
Rejecting the defence argument regarding the delay in the forensic analysis, Justice Sheikh held that the mere passage of time between the seizure and examination of a device did not establish tampering, particularly when the record showed that the phone was received by the technical analyst in a sealed condition through a chain-of-custody process.
The judge concluded that sufficient incriminating material existed against the petitioner and dismissed the bail petition.
However, he clarified that the observations made in the judgement were tentative in nature and the trial court would decide the case independently on the basis of the evidence.
Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2026
