The Viral Post and the Wrong Photograph
A Facebook page posts that a 'drug dealer' has been arrested in your area and includes a photograph and a name. Within hours the post is shared thousands of times. The person in the photograph comes to the thana: he is a local shopkeeper, he says he has never been arrested, and he has brought his national identity card. The name in the post matches a different man, arrested two weeks earlier, whose photograph was apparently taken from an old news item. The page admin is unknown. The shopkeeper wants the post removed and threatens to sue the police for leaking his photograph. A local journalist calls asking for confirmation.
1. Separate what the police did or may have done from what the page did, and explain the legal character of each.
Read the worked answer
The page's conduct. Publishing a false statement that a named person is a drug dealer, with a photograph, is defamation and, depending on the wording, may also engage provisions on public mischief and on obscene or harmful online publication under the cyber law. The page admin, once identified, can be proceeded against; the platform can be asked to remove the content through the lawful route.
The police's conduct - to be established, not assumed. The shopkeeper's photograph appears to have come from an old news item, not from police records, so there is no evidence yet that the police leaked it. But the police must still check: was the arrested man's photograph released, and by whom? Was any press note issued with a picture? If an officer did release a photograph of an arrested person, that may breach privacy and departmental rules even if it did not cause this particular error.
Key distinction. The police are not liable for a private page's falsehood merely because the page mentions an arrest. But the police are responsible for their own communications, and a failure to correct a false impression once informed can look like endorsement. The two questions - 'did we leak?' and 'what will we do about the post?' - must be answered separately.
2. What would you say to the journalist, and what would you do about the post?
Read the worked answer
To the journalist: Give the facts you can verify: a man was arrested two weeks ago under a given case reference; the person in the viral photograph is not that man and has not been arrested; the viral post is inaccurate. Do not confirm the arrested man's address, photograph, or family details. Ask the journalist to correct any earlier report that repeated the error, and offer the correct name-and-case reference only to the extent it is already public.
About the post:
- Record the complaint from the shopkeeper, with his identity card and a copy of the post.
- Preserve evidence - screenshots showing the URL, date, time, and share count.
- Request removal through the platform's lawful grievance route and through the cyber support unit, citing the false and defamatory content.
- Issue a short public clarification from the thana or district level: the person pictured has not been arrested; the post is inaccurate; the public should not share it. A clarification protects the shopkeeper and the force's credibility.
- Open an inquiry into the page admin's identity through lawful means, and into whether any officer released the arrested man's photograph.
Do not ask the shopkeeper to 'just ignore it'; a false accusation of drug dealing can destroy a local business and invite harassment.
3. The shopkeeper demands that you arrest the page admin today. How do you handle the demand lawfully and fairly?
Read the worked answer
Explain the process honestly. Identifying an anonymous page admin requires a lawful request to the platform, which takes time and may not succeed. Arrest is not the first step: the complaint must be recorded, the content preserved, and the legal provisions identified. Where the offence is not one requiring immediate arrest, the correct course is to investigate and proceed as the law allows, not to arrest on demand.
What you can do now:
- Register his complaint and give him a copy.
- Preserve the post and its metadata.
- Send the removal and identification request through the proper channel.
- Tell him what he can do himself: complain to the platform, and consult a lawyer about a defamation case, for which the police complaint record will be useful evidence.
Fairness on both sides. The shopkeeper has a real grievance, but the page admin is also entitled to due process; arresting a person before identity and evidence are established would be both unlawful and likely to fail in court. Set a review date and tell him when he will hear back. The measure of good handling is that he leaves knowing exactly what was done, what will happen next, and when.