LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF VIRAL CRIMES:

A STUDY OF CRIMES BROADCAST ON

SOCIAL MEDIA

SUBMITTED TO: - SUBMITTED BY: -

Prof. Balakista Reddy Bhavana Epur
School of Law, School of Law,
Mahindra University Mahindra University

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have been instrumental in supporting
and guiding me throughout the research and composition of this paper titled, “Legal
Implication of Viral Crimes: A Study of Crime Broadcast on Social Media.”

First and foremost, I would like to express my profound appreciated to Prof. Vivek Sehrawat
for his valuable guidance and unwavering support. His expertise and encouragement have been
pivotal in shaping the course of this research. His mentorship has been instrumental at every
stage of this academic journey.

I extend my sincere thanks to the Dean, Prof. Balakista Reddy Vundhyala, along with the entire
faculty and staff at the School of Law-Mahindra University, for their unwavering support and
for providing the essential resources required for this study.

I am deeply grateful to the legal experts specializing in the field and all individuals who
tirelessly contributed to this. Their passion, commitment, and dedication have served as a
source of inspiration for this research, underscoring the significance of collective efforts in
safeguarding the environment for future generations.

Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude to all those who, whether directly or indirectly, have been
a part of this academic endeavour. Your support and encouragement have been invaluable,
significantly contributing to the successful completion of this study.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 3

TABLE OF CASES.................................................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF STATUTES ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ................................................................................................... 8

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................ 9

RESEARCH QUESTIONS...................................................................................................... 10

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 12

VIRAL CRIMES AND THEIR BROADCASTING ............................................................... 13

AUDACIOUS OR SHOCKING NATURE: ........................................................................ 13

VISUAL DOCUMENTATION: ........................................................................................... 13

CRYPTIC OR UNRESOLVED ASPECTS: ........................................................................ 14

VIRALITY PARAMETERS: ............................................................................................... 14

LEGAL FRAMEWORK PERTAINING TO SUCH BROADCASTING ............................... 17

BROADCASTING OF VIRAL CRIMES; INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVACY OR A

NECESSITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY? .................................................................................. 19

RIGHTS FOUNDATIONS AND TECHNOLOGICAL EXPANSION ............................... 19

DISTINCT SOCIAL MEDIA ATTRIBUTES...................................................................... 19

JUDICIAL POSITIONS ON LIMITING FREE SPEECH .................................................. 19

POTENTIAL LIABILITIES OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS......................................... 22

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER REGULATION OF CONTENT THAT IS

PUBLISHED ON SOCIAL MEDIA ....................................................................................... 24

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 26

3
 LIST OF CASES

1. Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308

2. Bennett Coleman vs Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106
3. Chief Election Commissioner vs M.R Vijayabhaskar, AIR 2021 SC 2238
4. Indian Express vs Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578
5. Indian Express vs Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 515
6. Odyssey Communications vs Lokvidayan Sanghatana, 3 SCC 410 (1988)
7. Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
8. Secretary vs Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236
9. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
10. S. Khushboo vs Kanniamal, AIR 2010 SC 3196
11. Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court, AIR 2018 SC 14806

4
 LIST OF STATUTES

1. Information Technology Act, 2000

2. Indian Penal Code

3. Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989

4. National Security Act, 1980

5
 INTRODUCTION

The emergence of social media has significantly transformed the manner of crime reporting
and the public conversation surrounding relevant instances in India. Because of the widespread
use of digital platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and WhatsApp in daily life, common people
are now able to quickly draw attention to crimes through uploads, shares, and criticism. Experts
have issued a warning, though, because social media platforms' increased speed and
prominence might exacerbate harm in subtle ways1.

As graphic videos and images documenting crimes get widely circulate through reposts, it risks
normalizing trauma as well as perplexing legal investigation processes. The public visibility
afforded by viral content also raises crucial ethical questions around privacy, consent and
public interest that merit wider societal reflection. Additionally, the framing of such content
shared can shape public narratives in divisive ways – rallying activism around some issues
while exacerbating prejudice around others.

These intricate circumstances highlight the need for more responsible social media sharing
behaviours in India, including assessing the reliability of sources, avoiding conjecture, and
being more aware of the potential for secondary trauma caused by graphic content to victims
and communities. As internet usage in India continues to rise quickly, communities and
regulators alike must consider laws and policies that strike a balance between the advantages
of openness and the moral requirements of consent and dignity.

Disseminating false information on purpose, which can intensify tensions within a community,
is a significant worry regarding social media reports of viral crimes. To avoid endangering
harmony, it is necessary to verify information and refrain from promoting unsubstantiated
allegations.

A proactive approach to moderation is necessary to attenuate prejudice when it arises, in

addition to addressing disinformation concerns related to the framing and tone of debates on

1
Brainard, A. (2018) A content analysis of crimes posted on social media platforms,
https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/153/2018/05/08_Brainard.pdf. Available at:
https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/153/2018/05/08_Brainard.pdf (Accessed: 02 December 2023).

6
these platforms. In order to achieve this balance, more discussion about social media platform
accountability for reducing harm and ethical guidelines for digital news producers should take
place2.

In general, social media has substantially increased the power of citizen journalism;
nevertheless, in order to minimise harm, the pace and scope of content sharing must be adjusted
according to the conditions.

2
Dawn Carla Nunziato, Protecting Free Speech and Due Process Values on Dominant Social Media
Platforms, 73 Hastings L.J. 1255 (2022).

7
 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The complex interplay between social media and crime reportage poses important human
questions. As disturbing offenses get live-streamed and propagated rapidly through shares,
what does it say about digital ethics and legal gaps? How do we balance consent, dignity, and
free expression values equitably across victims and creators? Which communities face greater
harm from virality and why? Centralizing such human perspectives can illuminate less-
explored solution pathways - beyond debates framed binarily around regulation vs freedom.

The velocity of emerging online spaces challenges traditional judicial timelines profoundly. By
acknowledging these system limitations compassionately, we allow space for collective
responsibility. New dialogues that cut across civil society, government and tech leaders can re-
examine not just laws, but ethical values shaping virtual lives. Media literacy initiatives
focused on consent and trauma can raise consciousness across user groups.

Overall, this moment may gently remind us - technological and social change inevitable, but
grounding innovation in inclusive humanity lies within grasp.

8
 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Through this research paper, the researcher aims to: -

• Understand the implications of broadcasting viral crimes.

• Analyse the existing legal frameworks pertaining to such broadcasting.
• Distinguish whether such broadcasting is an infringement of freedom of speech or a
necessity for public safety.
• Explore the potential liabilities of social media platforms subject to such
broadcasting.
• Recommend legal and policy enhancements for better regulation of content that is
being published on social media.

9
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What obligations do social media platforms have in handling the viral spread of graphic
criminal content - legally, ethically and in terms of community standards protections?
How are policies and moderation systems evolving to address such complex issues?

2. In what ways can state policies balance transparency, free speech protections and public
interest considerations with ethical imperatives around victim dignity and
consent? How can platforms balance free speech interests with ethical obligations
around harm prevention?

10
 HYPOTHESIS

By examining these challenges subject to the broadcasting of viral crimes, the research aims to
provide insights into the development of more effective and equitable legal responses in the
digital age.

11
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research will utilize a mixed methods approach involving both quantitative and
qualitative data to analyse the phenomenon of crimes being broadcast virally on social media.
Quantitative methods will be used to scrape data from major platforms to identify viral crime
videos and posts and statistically analyse engagement and trends. Qualitative methods such
as content analysis and semi-structured interviews will allow for deeper interpretation of
contexts, motivations and impacts surrounding specific viral crime content and its
disseminators. The coding framework for content analysis and interview sampling plan with
creators of viral posts will be designed to categorize emergent themes that elucidate this
issue. By integrating large-scale quantitative viral crime data sets and in-depth qualitative
analyses, this comprehensive mixed methodology will yield exploratory findings about how
and why crimes spread rapidly through social media broadcasts as well as the range of
effects. The combination of data sources enhances validity for these research questions that
have yet to undergo extensive scrutiny.

12
 VIRAL CRIMES AND THEIR BROADCASTING

The internet has revolutionized communication globally by enabling instantaneous

transmission of messages and posts to wide audiences regardless of the speaker's status or
platform. As Andrew F. Sellars highlights in his essay 'Defining Hate Speech,' published by
Harvard University, "The internet represents a communication revolution and has enabled us
to communicate with millions of people worldwide, with no more difficulty than
communicating with a single person, at a click or by touch on a screen 3. Ironically, the very
qualities of the internet that have revolutionised communication are amenable to misuse."

This exponential reach amplifies risks when graphic content depicting crimes and violence gets
broadcasted virally on social media. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp, with
their real-time sharing features and interconnected networks, routinely make it possible for
isolated local incidents to gain global notoriety within hours. The collapse of barriers between
private and public has professionalized the act of content creation and attention capture.

A viral crime refers to illegal or criminal incidents that gain widespread attention and visibility
through social media and online shares. While there's no definitive threshold, crimes that
display some key features tend to become viral.

AUDACIOUS OR SHOCKING NATURE:

Crimes that are particularly egregious, audacious, uncommon or involve a high degree of
violence or harm tend to get amplified through shares. The shocking nature makes them stand
out and compels viewers to share.

VISUAL DOCUMENTATION:

The presence of visual documentation like videos or photos allows crimes to spread rapidly
online, receiving more engagement. Visuals tend to have higher emotional resonance.

3
Sellars, A. (2016) ‘Defining hate speech’, SSRN Electronic Journal [Preprint]. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2882244

13
Relatable Context: Crimes involving regular citizens at familiar societal settings seem to strike
a chord more easily and propagate widely. Relatability spurs interest and sharing.4

CRYPTIC OR UNRESOLVED ASPECTS:

Crimes that have puzzling, mysterious dimensions or lack resolution around key details tend
to feed curiosity and get shared widely as people speculate or discuss possibilities.

Sociopolitical Relevance: Incidents that tie into larger sociopolitical issues resonate more
widely as people link and discuss them within those contexts. Relevant issues act as sharing
catalysts.

VIRALITY PARAMETERS:

Metrics like shares, comments, embedding into memes etc. allow quantifying virality.
Thresholds differ but high volumes and velocity across platforms signal a viral crime.

In essence, a viral crime entails an incident with objectively or relatively outrageous/shocking

dimensions that catches popular interest and gets propagated swiftly through social channels
due to innate shareability. The collective social media response amplifies its scope and impact.
In the recent times, several distressing incidents gathered significant attention across multiple
social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, shedding light on the influence
of these platforms in the broadcasting of such obscene and gruesome crimes causing public
distress and the rampant public discourse. 5

An instance of it would be the alleged murder of Shradha Walker, involving Aftab Poonawala,
who is accused of dismembering Shradha’s body and disposing it across the city gained
widespread traction; amplifying the atrocious activity, highlighting the pivotal role of social
media in catalysing such widespread public outcry.

4
Andorfer, A. (2018). Spreading like wildfire: solutions for abating the fake news problem on social media via
technology controls and government regulation. Hastings Law Journal, 69(5), 1409-1432.
5
Chai, W. X. T., & Yu, J. (2021). Influence of Social Media on Deviant Acts: A Closer Examination of Live-
Streamed Crimes. In Introduction To Cyber Forensic Psychology: Understanding The Mind Of The Cyber Deviant
Perpetrators (pp. 23-44).

14
Another instance would be of the Udaipur Tailor killing, where the video of the murder
surfaced on Twitter, sparking multiple debates and discussions regarding communal narrative
and political exchanges and caste-based killings.

Furthermore, the human sacrifice observed in Kerala went viral on social media raising
concerns, leading to arrests.

The killing of the famous rapper Sidhu Moosewala and the subsequent updates regarding the
killing magnified the occurrence of such events, sparking a significant and impassioned
response from the public, resulting in widespread concern, attention, and discussion.

The cases mentioned above depict how social media plays the role of a catalyst in broadcasting
such viral crimes, influencing the perceptions of consumers, and potentially shaping the
trajectory of legal proceedings. These incidents attract widespread attention and there’s three
aspects to it; the good, the bad and the ugly.

On the positive side, social media fosters unprecedented connectivity between people and
public authorities, enabling real-time communication during emergencies also aiding in
identification and apprehension of perpetrators.

But on the darker side, it has enabled the emergence of novel criminal behaviours imperilling
a major threat to privacy and dignity of individuals. Additionally, traditional crimes like
harassment, fraud and identity theft have found new avenues through social media.

Further, the downside of social media is evident in the distraction of law enforcement and the
probability of risking false accusations against innocent individuals, emanating as a serious
threat to fair trails.

Amongst other alarming factors, victim blaming and secondary victimization as they’re
exposed to public scrutiny and harsh judgments where insensitive remarks are passed on them.
Although the broadcasting of viral crimes on social media has its own perks, its unchecked
misuse poses potential threats to justice, privacy, and integrity of individuals. An ethical

15
restraint should be put in place to monitor the misuse of social media in the due course of such
broadcastings.6

6
Michael P. Vandenbergh, Social Checks and Balances: A Private Fairness Doctrine, 73 VAND. L. REV. 811
(2020).

16
 LEGAL FRAMEWORK PERTAINING TO SUCH BROADCASTING

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021 were recently notified under Section 87 of the IT Act, 2000. They supersede the earlier
Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules from 2011.

The objectives are to institute clear oversight mechanisms for social media platforms as well
as publishers of online news/curated content. Intermediaries are classified based on number of
registered Indian users - above 50 lakhs make them a "Significant Social Media Intermediary"
(SSMI)7.

SSMIs have more stringent compliance norms as conduits of public interaction. They must
inform users against posting unlawful content like that which violates intellectual property,
promotes gambling, threatens India's unity, or relates to pornography/graphic violence
involving minors.

Upon actual knowledge or legal notification, objectionable posts must be taken down within
36 hours. User data also must be stored and shared if demanded by government order.
Reasonable data/cyber security protocols under India’s IT rules must be followed always.

To ensure accountability, SSMIs must be Indian entities with a formal grievance redress officer,
plus resident chief compliance and contact officers. The first enables time-bound complaints
processing.

Messaging apps also need to enable tracing of content originators for law enforcement needs,
rather than provide end-to-end encryption of all data that could aid criminals.

SSMIs must declare when they have commercial interests or exclusive IP rights over
information posted on their platforms by other parties. Any disabling of user access must be
notified with reasons and right of appeal.

7
Statista, Cyber crime in India - statistics & facts | Statista (December 2023)

17
For publishers of online news/curated content, the Intermediary Rules essentially aim to reduce
regulatory imbalance with traditional print/TV outlets. Digital publishers now must adhere to
norms governing the conduct of journalists (Press Council of India) and Programme Code
under the Cable TV Act, which regulates sensitive/objectionable content in Indian
broadcasting.

The rules institute a three-tier grievance mechanism for publishers - self-regulation, then
industry self-regulation bodies, and lastly an oversight mechanism under the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting. Grievances must be addressed in a set timeframe starting from
acknowledgement within 24 hours.

The oversight mechanism can order blocking/modifying of any unlawful content. It will have
an Inter-Departmental Committee to review unresolved public plaints and give
guidance/directions to publishers for ensuring ethics.

By bringing parity across media and instituting firm grievance redressal pathways culminating
in executive action if required, the Intermediary Rules strengthen the government’s locus standi
to crack down on criminally instigative online content while upholding free speech in principle.

18
 BROADCASTING OF VIRAL CRIMES; INFRINGEMENT OF
PRIVACY OR A NECESSITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY?

Viral broadcasts of crimes on social media spark debate on balancing rights against imperatives
of safety and order. Understanding precedents set by seminal cases offers guidance on
permissible restrictions.

RIGHTS FOUNDATIONS AND TECHNOLOGICAL EXPANSION

Indian Express vs Union of India8 upholds print media freedom under speech rights, applicable
to digital media like social media where crimes get broadcast widely. Hence restrictions must
not infringe Article 19(1)(a).

Odyssey Communications vs Lokvidayan Sanghatana 9

expands this protection to
films/airwaves as evolved mediums. Social media enjoys similar free speech protection as the
latest technological evolution.

DISTINCT SOCIAL MEDIA ATTRIBUTES

Chief Election Commissioner vs M.R Vijayabhaskar 10 observes each media transition from
print to internet has posed regulation complexities from amplified reach. Rapidly viral crime
broadcasts similarly necessitate balancing complex factors.

Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras 11

underlines free speech significance for tolerance
enabling democracy. But viral crime content risks harm beyond just unpopular opinions.

JUDICIAL POSITIONS ON LIMITING FREE SPEECH

Past precedents offer guidance on reasonable grounds for limiting speech without breaching
rights. But regulations must also serve purposes like public order per Article 19(2):

8
Indian Express vs Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578
9
Odyssey Communications vs Lokvidayan Sanghatana, 3 SCC 410 (1988)
10
Chief Election Commissioner vs M.R Vijayabhaskar, AIR 2021 SC 2238
11
Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

19
Secretary vs Cricket Association of Bengal12 prohibits wider circulation itself as restriction
grounds. Hence virality alone cannot justify regulations on broadcasting crimes either which
may violate Article 19(1)(a).

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India 13permits narrowly tailored regulations considering unique
internet attributes like anonymity, rapid spread etc. These qualities enable viral crime
broadcasts also and may warrant curbs reconciling rights and risks.

S. Khushboo vs Kanniamal 14notes speech can be limited under Article 19(2) for public order
despite being unpopular/offensive. Viral crime content can affect public order, justifying
narrow curbs.

Bennett Coleman vs Union of India 15

underscores governance critique rights, but online
regulation proponents highlight lack of ethics checks necessitating curbs, as noted in Shreya
Singhal, to balance rights and risks.

Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India 16notes regulation proponents argue for adapting rights
deliberations to evolving technological contexts enabling dangers like viral crime broadcasts.

Indian Express vs Union of India 17maintains free speech principles remain constant despite
information circulation scale advances posed by social media virality.

Together Secretary vs Cricket Association of Bengal and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India
recognize unique social media attributes may warrant tailored regulations without diluting
Article 19(2) reasonableness standards. This nuanced approach is most aligned to balance risks
and rights concerning dangerous viral crime broadcasts as well.

12
Secretary vs Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236
13
Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
14
S. Khushboo vs Kanniamal, AIR 2010 SC 3196
15
Bennett Coleman vs Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106
16
Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308
17
Indian Express vs Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 515

20
Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court 18
notes expanding internet strengthens case for
transparency using technology to disseminate proceedings. This principle will equally apply to
transparent discourse on balancing regulation and rights for risks like viral crime broadcasts.

The complex issue of regulating viral broadcasts of crime online involves balancing
Constitutional free speech protections that enable democracy with restrictions for public safety
necessitated by attributes unique to social media.

Past seminal cases in this domain recognize certain reasonable grounds to limit free speech
without infringing Article 19(1)(a), for purposes like maintaining public order under Article
19(2). However, arbitrary curtailments enabled merely by technological contexts are cautioned
against.

A prudent regulatory approach would be narrowly curating restrictions to address the

disproportionate dangers caused specifically by viral circulation of crime footage online, while
preserving free speech principles in significant measure. This reconciliatory framework
distilled from jurisprudential lens would uphold both individual expression liberties that form
the cornerstone of the Constitution as well as digital age imperatives like security and accuracy
that concern the wider public interest.

Therefore, in conclusion, adapting enduring Constitutional safeguards to evolving socio-

technological realities by harmonizing rights and duties through fair, clear, and reasoned
interventions framed via democratic processes is needed to meet contemporary challenges
posed by online virality of dangerous speech as opposed to blanket bans which could erode
India’s commitment to liberty.

18
Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court, AIR 2018 SC 14806

21
 POTENTIAL LIABILITIES OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021 that have been introduced by the Government of India can be implied to social media
platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, & Instagram, particularly concerning with the
broadcasting of viral crimes. The main aim of these guidelines is to regulate digital platforms,
and their impact regarding such broadcastings.

The potential liabilities of social media platforms in relation to the viral broadcast of crimes
are significantly increased under the new IT Rules 2021.

One major risk is that social media platforms can be held liable if they fail to comply with
government takedown orders or blocking directions related to content deemed illegal or against
public order. Under Rule 3(1)(d), platforms have only 36 hours to take down prohibited content
based on court orders or government notifications. Failure to do so in time exposes platforms
to potential penalties and loss of safe harbour protections.

Relatedly, the "traceability" requirement under Rule 5(2) also raises issues. Platforms must
identify and provide information on the "first originator" of problematic information to
government agencies. This could break end-to-end encryption and falsely implicate innocent
users if originator details are incorrect or fabricated. Determining the actual first originator
could also be technologically infeasible in many cases. Non-compliance could again lead to
sanctions for platforms.

The appointment of key compliance personnel under Rules 4(a)-(c) also makes platforms liable
for executive actions. The Chief Compliance Officer and Resident Grievance Officer must
ensure adherence on content moderation, grievance redressal etc. Executive liability greatly
expands platforms' surface area for potential infractions under the Rules.

Lastly, the expansive powers given to government bodies under the three-tier grievance process
significantly increase state oversight and control. Government panels can issue takedown
advisories or recommendations even without judicial oversight. And non-binding

22
recommendations can fast transform into binding interim blocking directions under Section
69A based on the same arguments. Platform non-compliance at any stage invites sanctions.

Therefore, the IT Rules 2021 greatly increase the potential liabilities of social media platforms
in the context of viral crime broadcast based on content moderation, compliance, and grievance
redressal provisions. It pressures platforms to aggressively take down content or share user
data to avoid government sanctions for procedural lapses or systemic failures, at the cost of
user rights and liberties. The broad grounds provided for content removal and the sweeping
executive powers sanction expansive speech regulation without sufficient checks and balances.

23
 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER REGULATION OF
CONTENT THAT IS PUBLISHED ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Here are some recommendations for enhancing the legal and policy framework to better
regulate content on social media:

1. Establish an independent regulatory body: An autonomous statutory authority with

mandate and powers to oversee content regulation across platforms could balance concerns in
a more even-handed way instead of excessive governmental control. Multi-stakeholder
representation with civil society participation is important.

2. Judicial oversight over executive actions: Require that executive takedown orders and
blocking directions must be validated by courts within a fixed timeframe to prevent overreach.
Allow for time-bound appeals against directives.

3. Limit grounds for content restrictions: Restrict the grounds for content
takedowns/blocking to categories recognized under international human rights law like
incitement to violence and recognize principles like legality, necessity, and proportionality.

4. Incorporate privacy safeguards: Build in data protection obligations for platforms while
complying with orders to ensure user privacy isn't compromised through invasive disclosures.
Evaluate traceability needs responsibly.

5. Transparency and accountability: Require regular transparency reports from platforms

detailing content actions taken, user grievances received and resolved, traceability requests
fulfilled, etc. to evaluate compliance.

6. Due process commitments: Incorporate due process principles so users have avenues for
recourse in case of disputes over content removals/account suspensions via internal and
external appeals.

24
7. Incentivize self-regulation: Explore graded penalties and liability exemptions for compliant
platforms to incentivize voluntary steps for safety and ethics. Government regulation should
enable industry self-correction.

An effective legal/policy approach should responsibly expand platforms' content obligations

while avoiding over-regulation that constricts speech and user rights. Oversight bodies with
diverse representation, privacy focus and checks on executive power can help achieve this
balance.

25
 CONCLUSION

The advent of social media and user generated video content has enabled the viral spread of
graphic crime footage like never before. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have
allowed users to widely broadcast crimes and violence in real-time, sometimes even as
livestreams. This has significant societal implications that necessitate a robust policy response.

An unregulated social media environment poses dangers on several fronts — it desensitizes

audiences to violence, enables the accelerated spread fake news and rumours that could spark
communal tensions, provides instant glorification opportunities for criminals seeking fame,
promotes copycat crimes for those already on societal fringes and has disproportionate
psychological impacts especially on children. Further, the permanence, accessibility and
shareability of digitized footage hampers the privacy and rehabilitation efforts of those
unwittingly part of such videos.

However, any governmental interventions in this arena also risk encroaching on civil liberties
like free speech and privacy that enable democracy. thus, societal outcomes depend greatly on
how competing interests and rights are balanced in policy frameworks on broadcasting crimes
online. India’s current approach via the IT Rules 2021 has elicited several criticisms on
precisely such grounds of proportionality.

This research paper surveyed the landscape of viral crime broadcast regulation globally and in
India. Case studies, stakeholder analyses and jurisprudential reviews revealed tendencies for
governmental overreach even as online harms persist and evolve. While contexts differ
internationally, overarching principles can be drawn — regulation should be judicious, rights-
respecting and guided by evidence, not just public pressure after isolated shocking incidents.

The paper recommends framework enhancements like independent regulators, court

supervision of executive takedown orders, narrow grounds for content restrictions that respect
international rights standards, building user privacy safeguards and grievance redressal
mechanisms into platform obligations, requiring government transparency reports for
accountability, and exploring incentives for industry self-correction.

26
In conclusion, this paper argues that democracies like India must address contemporary
challenges like viral circulation of graphic crimes on social media by updating regulatory
frameworks via participative, deliberative processes instead of unilateral executive rule-
making. Multi-stakeholder consultation and public discussion around reforms that balance
security, ethics, liberty, and innovation concerns are vital for durable, rights-compliant, and
effective policies in the digital age. The outlook for democratic resilience depends greatly on
how societies negotiate such emerging technology regulations. Achieving principled, wise
policy frameworks by learning from global responses remains critical as the virtual public
sphere envelops more aspects of social life every day. rewrite it

27