The name and photos of the trainee doctor, who was raped and killed at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, are still visible on social media platforms nearly two weeks after orders from the Calcutta High Court and more than a week after the Supreme Court order directing their removal.
The court orders prompted the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to issue an advisory urging all social media companies to ensure that such sensitive information is not further disseminated. “Failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s order may result in legal consequences and further regulatory action,” the August 21, 2024 press release read.
MeitY also directed social media platforms to report on the action taken and compliance of the Supreme Court order at cyberlaw-legal@meity.gov.in.
However, a week later as of August 27, according to Google’s search engine that tracks social media, BOOM found that a search of the victim’s name throws up 276,000 results on Facebook, 20,800 results on Twitter, 295,000 results on Instagram, 58,800 results on TikTok (which is banned in India), 10,500 results on LinkedIn and 32 results on Pinterest.
It is illegal to identify a sexual assault victim in India. But in the digital age, and rise of social media influencers who want to make their reels go viral, the recent Kolkata rape and murder case have revealed the fragmented nature of the Internet— where anonymity is evasive.
Social Media Non-Compliance: Posts Still Live
A YouTube search of the victim’s name shows alleged CCTV footage of the victim after the incident, influencers acting out the victim’s alleged last moments, videos of the alleged crime scene, and various influencers ‘reporting’ on the crime.
At the time of writing this report, Facebook had restricted the search for the #JusticeFor[Victim’sName], however, search results of the victim’s name can be seen in various combinations.
In the immediate aftermath of the Kolkata rape-murder incident, Mumbai-based Rati Foundation, which runs the Meri Trustline - a helpline for children and women facing online risks, noticed a spike in related content.
“At first, it was posts seeking justice, but over time, we started linking these hashtags with unsavoury and worrisome content,” Siddharth P, Co-founder Rati Foundation told BOOM. “#JusticeFor[Victim’sName] was linked with misinformation, AI deepfakes, and others who were using the ‘viral moment’ to bait users to post pornography,” Siddharth said, adding that some of the videos linked with the #[Victim’s name] was basically people pretending to be the victim and recreating the final moments of her life.
“At some point, Internet users also figured out the victim’s original social media account which had her pictures, and other details. Social media users then started posting needless speculation and conspiracy theories in the comment sections,” he added.
Siddharth said the Rati Foundation's Meri Trustline —which is a trust and safety partner with social media platforms like YouTube and Meta—flagged content and escalated problematic content. Siddharth pointed out that at least with Meta, the content would “almost always” be taken down.
“We have definitely seen a crackdown on posts that reveal the victim’s identity and photo. We are seeing much less of the content now,” Siddharth said.
The Fine Line: Advocacy vs Harm
Innumerable reports highlight the impact of discourse on social media and its offline impact. Though the victim’s name has become a rallying point for those seeking justice, it is impacted by the dual-edged sword of privacy. Users are using the #victim’s name to amplify their voices but may also court trouble because they are inadvertently outing the victim’s identity which is against the law.
The victim’s family members told Decode that influencers were posting photos of the family’s house and images of nameplates bearing her name. “People were clicking photographs of the nameplate with my niece's name. There is no amount of secrecy anymore,” the victim’s relative had told Decode.
Decode also reported on how many influencers and make-up artists were producing reels where they were pretending to be the victim in her final moments.
Bengaluru-based journalist Laxmi Murthy said there is a lot of voyeurism in the garb for justice. The journalist said the reels are probably one manner in which the public is not only venting anger and frustration but also perhaps seeking justice. “It may be well-meaning, but it undoes decades of campaigning for the protection of sexual assault victims,” Murthy, co-editor of the Free Speech Collective, told BOOM.
Siddharth P said the situation is definitely unique. “At this point, we worry that since the victim's name and identity have become part of public consciousness and speech and the movement itself. Are we over-censoring and erasing good-faith voices from the movement? The fact is, that social media is empowering this movement and keeping it alive,” he said.
Kolkata Police, infact, issued notices to several social media users under Section 168 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for publishing “offensive, malicious and inciteful” posts. But to no avail.
BOOM reached out to Meity, Meta, and YouTube seeking the compliance status of court orders.
YouTube replied saying they have “clear policies for removal requests from governments, regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies around the world”. These requests are reviewed when notified through the correct legal processes. Their team also goes through content that has been flagged for violations. “Where appropriate, we restrict or remove content in keeping with local laws and our Terms of Service after a thorough review. All of these requests are tracked and included in our Transparency Report,” the YouTube spokesperson told BOOM.
“We are enforcing against the content,” Meta spokesperson said.
BOOM did not receive a response from Meity at the time of publishing this story.
Free Speech vs Privacy: Legal and Ethical Debate
Advocate Vikram Hegde said as intermediaries, social media platforms cannot simply implement a blanket takedown order. “The standards they have set for themselves limit their authority to block/remove only those posts or accounts that have been tagged. Accounts that are repeat offenders, instances where the social media platforms have got complaints of a particular account or posts, or there is a specific legal direction to take them down,” Hegde told BOOM.
“Yes, publishing a rape victim’s identity is an offence, but in this case, the prosecution may act reasonably because the intent here was not to cause harm. The public at large on social media is asking for justice. So, if the government were to take a heavy-handed approach in this case, it may just backfire against them,” Hegde said. “It would be an overkill,” he added.
Hegde explained that much thought has gone behind the law to protect a victim’s identity. Many court judgments outline the cons of outing the identity of sexual assault victims. “But here, the intentions of those taking to social media and using the hashtag with the victim’s name is good. They may not intend to aggravate the harm the family is feeling,” he said, adding that some type of prohibition is necessary as well.
Laxmi Murthy feels in this situation, all the posts surrounding the victim are “overkill”. “There is a law in place that prohibits naming a victim of sexual assault. So since TV is banned from naming the victim, all the energy has been redirected on social media,” she said.
“Each social media user is now a content producer, so it gives them a sense of being in control that by forwarding reels or making reels, they are doing something and aiming to make a difference. Contributing to the discourse in the broader sense of justice whether or not such content is relevant or even sensitive,” Murthy explained.
Murthy, however, wondered, “What stopped social media platforms from acting the moment their algorithms noted a surge on this topic? Had the social media platforms disable or block the victim’s original account at the get-go, it would have helped avert the misuse of her photos”.
How Long Does It Take For Platforms To Act?
According to a report in Newslaundry earlier this year in April, YouTube blocked news platform ‘Bolta Hindustan’ 12 hours after giving it a notice. YouTube said the blocking order came from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
YouTube channel National Dastak received a similar notice, as did the channel Article 19. In March, YouTube also blocked two ABC videos that featured reports of a Sikh nationalist. During the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections, social media platforms restricted the now-Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh’s social media reach. Singh, who won the elections from his constituency stands accused of waging war against the country, attempted murder, assault of police officials, kidnapping, arms act, and rash driving.
According to the Centre’s response to a question in the Lok Sabha, internet users in India are expected to increase to 120 crore users by 2026 making the country the “largest connected democracy on the global Internet”.
Lok Sabha replies further stated that social media platforms bear the onus of blocking content. Government has issued directions to block a total of 25,354 URLs from 2021 till December 2023. “Platforms are required to ensure that their users do not use their platforms for sharing or transmitting content that violates Rule 3(1)(b) and other laws and that their terms of use expressly restrict use of eleven types of content under the law,” the Centre replied to a question posed in the Lok Sabha in December 2023.
According to Meta’s transparency report, between July and December 2023, the social media platform received 91,907 government requests for blocking of these 81,896 were legal requests. “Each and every request we receive is carefully reviewed for legal sufficiency and we may reject or require greater specificity on requests that appear overly broad or vague,” Meta stated. It is, however, unclear on how many requests Meta complied with.
Since January 2024, YouTube has removed 49,30,689 videos that flout its community guidelines.
Blocking orders on X (formerly Twitter) have also increased multifold since 2018 - the highest requests received by any social media intermediary.
India ranks 159th of 180 countries according to the World Press Freedom Index. The ranking reflects the challenges to free speech. The social media platforms response to legal requests for takedowns is normally quick making experts question the delay in restricting or blocking content in the Kolkata matter.
There is a stark difference in how social media platforms act on problematic content. “Social media platforms acted with alacrity by blocking YouTube channels and social media accounts of journalists and others critical of the government during the farmers' protests, riots in Delhi etc,” Laxmi Murthy, who is also part of the Free Speech Collective, said.
“Yet, reels and posts identifying the victim doctor, as well as pornographic videos are still in circulation. This contrast in action taken engenders suspicion about the political allegiance of social media platforms,” she added.