Two years after he reacted with a laughing emoji on a Facebook comment, Amit Chakraborty was surrounded by reporters with cameras and microphones. His family was confused and terrified. He had not told his family he had been battling a legal case for that seemingly casual emoji.
In February 2023, a Facebook post by Kokrajhar Deputy Commissioner Varnali Deka incited plenty of comments. A Facebook user, Naresh Barua, commented, “No makeup today, ma’am?” Chakraborty, a business owner in Assam, was one of several users who reacted to the comment.
While Deka responded with a sharp comeback, the controversy had just started to begin.
A cyber-stalking complaint was filed against Barua for his comment, and Chakraborty and another person, Abdul Subur Choudhary, were charged for reacting to it.
Chakraborty remained unaware of the case until he was suddenly summoned to Kokrajhar. He drove 273 kilometers from Dhekiajuli with his lawyer, stayed overnight, and managed to get interim bail.
But his ordeal wasn’t over. A week later, he had to return to give his statement, racking up more expenses.
Finally, Chakraborty explained to his worried family that the media attention wasn't because the case was serious, but because it was so trivial.
While emojis have taken different forms of meaning in different cultures and contexts across the globe, it has also led to defamation lawsuits and criminal charges in India. The tiny digital symbols have taken on unexpected weight in Indian courts.
But how far can a simple reaction go before it turns into a legal nightmare?
Emojis And The Law
Biru Saha, a Guwahati High Court advocate representing Chakraborty, explained that since his client was a first-time offender, the charges were bailable. However, a second offense would have been "serious" and non-bailable. Saha believed that filing an FIR over an emoji reaction was excessive, especially when it "does not seem to violate anything".
"The court would have given bail after looking at the evidence, anyway," he said. "But in my opinion, registration of the FIR also seems illogical here. We have seen bigger offences where the investigating officer mediates and dissolves the matter before registering an FIR."
But the laughing emoji is no laughing matter.
Back in 2018, 46 employees of BSNL found themselves entangled in a legal battle all because of the laughing emoji. Their alleged crime? Reacting with a crying-laughter emoji to a WhatsApp message from a woman colleague, who had shared a “serious” video about customer grievances with BSNL’s network coverage.
The WhatsApp group, meant for discussing service issues and improving quality, became the centre of controversy when the complainant accused her colleagues of harassment. A case was registered under multiple stringent laws, including the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, and the Information Technology Act.
However, the Madras High Court intervened, ruling that an emoji—merely an expression of one's reaction—could not be considered an overt act of harassment. The court also dismissed the application of the SC/ST Act, pointing out that the complaint itself did not suggest the emoji was intended to target the complainant’s caste identity.
Emojis In Defamation Cases
Not just triggering harassment charges, emojis have also influenced legal interpretations of defamation in online speech.
In a 2025 case (Addictive Learning Technology Limited & Anr. v. Aditya Garg & Ors.), the Delhi High Court dismissed a defamation suit, noting that emojis in one of the defendant's tweets contributed to the overall context.
While not central to the ruling, the court acknowledged that emojis can influence meaning—adding sarcasm, humour, or nuance that may alter how a statement is perceived.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasised that social media posts must be assessed in their full conversational context rather than in isolation. The case, filed by LawSikho, claimed that tweets by Aditya Garg and three others damaged their reputation and financial standing.
The court found that the statements, when viewed within the larger discussion, did not amount to defamation.
The ruling highlighted how emojis can be used as digital cues in online speech cases, though they may not always be the deciding factor.
Dismissing the suit, the court imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on the plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court lawyer Himanshu Bhushan explained that in defamation cases, the key question is whether an emoji significantly changes a statement's meaning.
"If a post appears on an online platform, its relevance at the initial stage is usually limited to determining whether an injunction should be granted," he said. "In the early stages, the focus is on whether there is a prima facie case of defamation."
Bhushan noted that an emoji might influence the judge’s first impression of the statement’s tone or intent. However, when it comes to awarding damages or restraining speech, intent alone is not always decisive.
He explained that in civil defamation cases, the complainant must demonstrate they had a reputation that was damaged by the statement in context—intent isn't required. Emojis, like any other form of speech, must be examined in full context, often requiring evidence and cross-examination.
For criminal defamation, where penalties can include imprisonment, intent is crucial: "The prosecution must prove the accused knowingly or recklessly aimed to harm the complainant's reputation,” the lawyer said.
Depending on the context, an emoji could either strengthen or weaken the case, he added.
The Legal Gray Area of Emojis in Harassment Cases
While emojis are often seen as harmless digital expressions, they can take on a different weight in legal battles. In a 2023 case (Aakashkumar Rakeshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat), an emoji became part of a harassment allegation.
Patel, an educational institution employee, was accused of harassing a deceased individual by allegedly threatening academic consequences. After the individual failed an examination, Patel reportedly sent an emoji that the prosecution argued was mockery and psychological harassment.
While the exact emoji was not specified, it was presented as evidence to establish a pattern of intimidation. The defense argued that an emoji alone didn't justify custodial interrogation.
The court granted Patel anticipatory bail, considering his clean record and government job.
While Patel's case highlighted how an emoji could be scrutinised in a harassment allegation, in a more serious 2022 case, the Supreme Court revoked bail for a rape accused after he appeared in social media posts with celebratory captions and emojis—crowns and hearts—that portrayed him as "a figure of power and admiration".
The complainant had appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in granting bail given the gravity of the offenses and the circumstances of the case.
The accused, however, insisted that the posts were linked to a religious festival, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The symbols, in the backdrop of a serious allegation, were seen as a public display of dominance, potentially intimidating the survivor and influencing the trial.
Recognising the impact such gestures could have on justice, the Supreme Court ordered the accused to surrender.
The Uncertain Future Of Emojis In Court
The lawyer representing the complainant in the rape case, speaking anonymously to Decode, explained that the legal weight of an emoji depends on the intent and varies case by case. “It can have just one meaning, or sometimes another. It is subjective. It’s not easy to prove anything based on it alone,” he said.
Emphasising the ambiguity, he added, “Emojis are not necessarily bad. Not everyone knows what many emojis mean, which makes it difficult to establish a growing legal precedent for their use as evidence.”
Amit Chakraborty’s lawyer Saha, who is currently defending his client in a case involving what he describes as a “harmless emoji”, echoed a similar sentiment. While acknowledging that emojis could provide valuable perspective in serious harassment cases, he argued that cases built entirely around it may lack legal merit. “It doesn’t make much sense and is unfair to genuine cases,” he noted.
He also pointed to the strain such cases place on the judicial system. “We already have an overwhelming backlog of cases. This is just a byproduct of evolving digital communication,” he said.
“In the future, we may see even more such cases, but it will only make the judicial process more lengthy,” he added.