The Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) chief PV Sunil Kumar often makes it to the news for the agency’s crackdown on social media crimes. Every time an arrest is made in the state by the CID – a total of 146 persons have been arrested since 2020 – the Opposition questions them and alleges that the investigation agency is working at the behest of the government. Sunil Kumar is a household name in the state today, so much so that the Opposition Telugu Desam Party (TDP) is questioning why and how a CID Chief has become so popular unlike his predecessors. In this interview, Sunil Kumar takes questions from TNM and explains why he believes the CID is doing its job well — a job that the agency is cut out for. Here are excerpts from the interview.
In Andhra Pradesh, very often, we hear the CID cracking the whip on social media activists, political workers, journalists and the common man for social media posts. Why is there a sudden rise in social media cyber crimes?
The number of cases in this domain currently being booked in Andhra Pradesh is no indicator of the magnitude of the problem. It’s only a tip of the iceberg. Today, a favourable ecosystem has been created for social media slander and this is giving a platform for people to use social media as per their whims and fancies. Smartphones are available cheaply and data is much more affordable compared to many other countries. In India, there are three things that everyone is interested in—entertainment, cricket and politics. Everyone is using social media as a platform to pass comments and share their opinions on everything. The language used is often sickening.
Has there been a change in the way people use social media after CID began cracking the whip?
There has been a dip in recent times in the way people use social media for abuse and political propaganda. Initially, people were ignorant of the law. Today, many people have realised that they can be booked for breaking the law. Our aim is to instil awareness among the people that falsifying facts and rumour mongering is against the law.
Largely, there are three kinds of people. The first kind are those who are ignorant. They have no agenda, they are simply ignorant. The second kind are hardcore party workers who work for a particular political party. The third kind are paid campaigners. Those who fall in this category are loose cannons, who are ready to put out anything for a price.
In many instances, where cases have been registered, arrests have been made. Many of those arrested have alleged that summons as per 41-A CrPC, the notice of appearance before police officers in cases where the arrest of a person is not required, were not issued. The opposition has alleged that the DK Basu and Arnesh Kumar judgements have been violated by the CID. What do you have to say about this?
Each case is different and the investigation depends on the section of law under which the case has been booked. Normally, no arrests are made in cases pertaining to social media. However, in the case of repeat offenders and especially where there is a conspiracy and the accused is likely to destroy evidence arrests can be made. Serving a notice under 41-A and a procedure under 41-B CrPC is a discretion of the investigating officer. The Arnesh Kumar judgement says the investigating officer can apply his mind and make a decision.
In a majority of cases the arrests have been made late in the evening or at night. Opposition alleges the laid down standard operating procedures are being flouted. Some of those arrested have alleged torture in CID custody.
There are standard operating procedures and they are being followed. In some cases when the investigating officer tries to serve a notice they are attacked. Barring those arrested in political cases, has anyone alleged torture in CID cases? Political activists want to indulge in rumour mongering. Their aim is to create distress and hatred in society. If law enforcement agencies like the CID are threatened and blackmailed they believe their job will become easy.
We don’t bother about people merely expressing their opinion or even harsh criticism. It is when people indulge in rumour mongering and create hatred that we step in. Falsifying facts and rumour mongering is breaking the law. It is only when somebody commits an offence under IPC, IT Act or the CrPC that we step in. Circulation of false information is also an offence.
In many cases, the rumour mongering and misinformation is orchestrated and pre-determined. If we let go, where will this end? If we are unable to protect the highest office—that of the Chief Minister, then people will lose faith in us. In many cases we are forced to step in because of the nature of the cases.
Why is the CID taking up several social media cases in the state while the state police can handle the same? Does the CID feel the state police are incapable of handling such cases?
All the cases that the CID have taken up are distinct cases and are very tough cases. The CID doesn’t take up major corruption cases. We take up even child missing cases—when they are missing for long. The local police already have a lot on their plate. They are already handling traffic, bandobast duties, court duties and other law and order cases. The CID goes into cases which are difficult for the state police. In every case that the CID takes up, we look into all aspects. Oral evidence, technical evidence and every other detail is analysed and investigated.
Social media cases require technical expertise. The CID chief is the nodal officer in the state for all social media operators. In nearly 50 issues—like narcotics, women safety, cases that need help from Interpol etc, the CID chief is the nodal officer. Even if the cyber cell takes up a case, they need to reach out to the CID Chief for taking up the matter with social media operators. It is easier and time-efficient that the CID takes up such cases because the agency has the technical expertise. Many fake profiles are using VPN settings thinking they can get away from being caught. NRIs are under the impression that they will not be held accountable for their posts. The truth is that the CID is capable of finding them and holding them accountable.
How do you respond to the charge that the CID is selective in booking cases related to social media offences? The TDP has alleged that most people booked so far are from the Kamma community and that the CID did not exhibit the same enthusiasm in the case of social media activists, who allegedly made comments against judges with regard to judgments delivered in the recent past.
There is nothing like Kamma or Reddy in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc). The law is the same for all. In the case in which objectionable comments were made against judges in Andhra Pradesh, a case was registered by the CID and people were questioned. We were in the process of collecting evidence when the case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Even the CBI took a year to make the arrests in the case. (The CBI registered a case on November 11, 202 against 16 accused and took over the investigation of 12 FIRs from CID in pursuance of orders of the High Court. Nearly a year later, on October 22, 2021, six accused were arrested by the CBI from different places in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The TDP alleges that the CID went soft on the activists as they were linked to the ruling-YSRCP). If time was given we would have also arrested the accused. The claim that the CID was inactive is baseless.