Basics
- Free Speech (Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India): Fundamental right but not absolute.
- Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2)): Speech can be regulated in the interest of decency, morality, public order, defamation, etc.
- Case Context:
- Comedians faced complaints for insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities.
- Petition filed by an NGO (SMA Cure Foundation).
- Question before SC: How to balance freedom of expression with dignity of vulnerable groups in a diverse society.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary , Constitution )
Supreme Court Observations
- Commercialisation of Free Speech: Social media influencers use speech for profit; such speech can amplify harm.
- Impact on Communities: Speech must respect dignity of persons with disabilities, women, children, senior citizens, and minorities.
- On Humour: Recognised humour’s value, but cautioned that levity should not cross into hurtful stereotyping.
- Main Concern: Insensitive jokes undermine the constitutional goal of inclusion for disabled persons.
- On Guidelines:
- Need clear rules with specific and proportionate consequences for violations.
- Guidelines must draw a line between free speech vs. prohibited/hurtful speech.
- Consequences must not be “empty formalities.”
Government’s Position (Attorney-General R. Venkataramani)
- Objective: Focus on sensitisation of social media users, not censorship.
- Accountability: Violators must take responsibility.
- Observation: Many online blogs/podcasts “feed egos” rather than serve public good.
Legal Classification of Speech (as noted by SC)
- Free Speech – protected expression.
- Commercial Speech – profit-oriented, subject to regulation.
- Prohibited Speech – unlawful (hate speech, obscenity, etc.).
- Overlap Concern: Online comedy shows and influencer content often blend commercial and potentially prohibited speech.
Wider Issues Highlighted
- Influence of Social Media: What influencers say shapes attitudes of an entire generation.
- Dignity vs. Expression: Vulnerable groups risk mockery, reinforcing exclusion.
- Precedent Risk: Today disability, tomorrow jokes on women/children/elders → slippery slope of insensitivity.
Directions by Court
- Comedians asked to tender unconditional apology through their shows.
- Centre asked to frame social media guidelines in consultation with stakeholders (National Broadcasters and Digital Association).
- Case listed again in November 2024.
Comprehensive Analysis
- Constitutional Balance:
- Court is not curtailing free speech but seeking a balance with Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity).
- Evolving Jurisprudence:
- Expands interpretation of restrictions on speech in digital age.
- Treats influencers as responsible public figures, not private speakers.
- Policy Implications:
- Rules may cover podcasts, comedy shows, reels, stand-ups with commercial intent.
- Likely to emphasise sensitisation, grievance redressal, proportionate penalties.
- Global Parallels:
- EU’s Digital Services Act (2022): accountability of online platforms for harmful content.
- U.S.: Free speech absolute but limited by hate speech jurisprudence in practice.
- India is moving towards a hybrid model: protect speech but curb offensive, discriminatory content.
Way Forward
- Guideline Formation: Involve civil society, disability rights groups, digital platforms.
- Sensitisation Campaigns: Make influencers ambassadors of inclusion.
- Stronger Grievance Redressal: Quick complaint resolution on platforms.
- Graduated Penalties: Apology → Fines → De-platforming for repeated violations.
- Judicial Oversight: SC ensures rules don’t become tools for censorship.
