Creator, Sharer, Commenter: Why Fighting Fake Videos Needs a Scalpel, Not a Net

Three People in One Chain, Three Different Wrongs

Misinformation after a mass-casualty event is not harmless gossip. One fake video reportedly alleged that a stampede victim's eye had been stolen. Claims like that, spreading through grieving communities, can trigger panic, anger and communal tension. A government that does nothing would be failing its duty. So the question is not whether West Bengal should act. It is how.

The easy answer and why it fails The easy answer is to treat everyone in the chain the same.

The Chief Minister said 135 people had been identified for circulating or endorsing the fake videos and asked the police to book them under non-bailable provisions. On the surface, this is decisive. But look at who sits in that chain:

• The creator, who manufactured the falsehood, perhaps across the border, perhaps as part of a coordinated effort.
• The sharer, who may have forwarded it knowingly to inflame or carelessly, out of shock or concern.
• The commenter, who may have endorsed it, questioned it or used it to criticise the administration's handling of the tragedy. These are not the same act. Treating them alike turns a legitimate public-order goal into something closer to a dragnet.

What the

law already says The Supreme Court has drawn these lines before. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), it struck down Section 66A of the IT Act because its vague wording let police arrest people for merely annoying or inconvenient posts, chilling free speech.

The Court distinguished between discussion, advocacy and incitement; only the last can be punished. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Siddharth v. State of UP (2021), it held that arrest is not automatic, even for non-bailable offences.

For offences punishable with up to seven years, police must record specific reasons and liberty should not be curtailed if the accused cooperates. There is also a timing problem. The stampede has raised hard questions about safety and accountability.

The Calcutta High Court has ordered an inquiry led by a retired judge and seven people, including pandal organisers, have been arrested. Blanket charges against commenters, in this moment, risk silencing the very public questioning that accountability needs.

The proportionate path Imagine you are the officer handed the list of 135 names.

A proportionate response would:

• Target creators and coordinated networks first, using investigation into origins, including cross-border sources.
• Correct the facts fast, through official briefings and platform flagging, because a quick truth weakens a fake far more than a delayed arrest.
• Handle careless sharers through notice, asking them to delete content and warning them, rather than arresting them.
• Reserve arrest for those whose intent to incite is shown by evidence, with reasons recorded as the courts require. What is lost? Some who spread falsehoods knowingly may escape punishment and the deterrent message is softer. But a state that arrests the frightened alongside the malicious teaches citizens a worse lesson: that speaking at all, after a tragedy, is dangerous. For GS4, the insight is that proportionality is not leniency. It is precision: the duty to stop harm and the duty to protect speech are both met only when the state can tell a creator from a citizen.