The Bombay High Court on Friday observed that people are abusing their liberty of free speech on social media in the name of exercising their rights, while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by a Mumbai resident, Bar and Bench reported.

“The right [to freedom of opinion and expression] cannot be exercised to sow seeds of hatred and to create disharmony among religious communities,” the High Court said. “Since inflammatory posts/messages have the potential of disturbing public peace and tranquility, strong action ought to be taken against those responsible to uphold the high values aimed at by the Constitution.”

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar said the Maharashtra government should introduce stricter norms to curb the rise of inflammatory posts, but it should keep “in mind the test of reasonable restrictions provided under the right to free speech and expression.”

The petition, filed by Imran Khan through his advocate Vivek Shukla, had sought action against one Abu Faizal. The person concerned is a supporter of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, according to Hindustan Times. The newspaper, however, named the petitioner as Moin Khan. Shukla claimed that Faizal was spreading incendiary materials on social media that could disturb the harmony between two religious communities.

In May, the High Court had ordered Facebook and YouTube to delete the communally-sensitive material posted by Faizal. Facebook and YouTube then said that they could block Faizal if the court and the Centre directed them to do so under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In its Friday ruling, the High Court ordered the petitioner to approach the nodal officer and lodge his complaint, refusing to direct the police on taking action against Faizal. It cited an earlier Supreme Court judgement in which the court asked the petitioner to approach the forum as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“if indeed the petitioner’s complaint of fresh posts having been uploaded with similar contents and the police remaining inactive despite information given disclosing a cognizable offence, is true, it is open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy provided by the CrPC,” the High Court said. “No direction of the nature sought for should, therefore, be passed.”