Context
The Supreme Court has flagged the increasing misuse of free speech on social media, especially when it incites division, hate, or undermines dignity. The Court called for a framework of regulation, not censorship, to balance constitutional rights with social responsibility.
Relevance : GS 2(Fundamental Rights, Fake Speech, Misinformation)
Constitutional & Legal Context
| Provision / Case | Relevance |
| Article 19(1)(a) | Guarantees freedom of speech and expression |
| Article 19(2) | Allows reasonable restrictions for interests like public order, morality, etc. |
| IT Act, Section 66A (struck down) | Declared unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) |
| IPC Sections 153A, 295A, 505 | Punish speech that promotes enmity, religious insult, or false alarms |
Supreme Court’s Observations (July 2025)
- Free speech is being weaponized—particularly online—to fuel communalism, defame individuals, or erode public trust.
- Social media magnifies harm due to its viral nature and low accountability.
- The Court clarified: “We are not calling for censorship, but for self-restraint and regulatory balance.”
Why the Concern Over Social Media Speech?
1. Unchecked Virality
- Harmful or hateful content spreads rapidly—amplifying misinformation and communal tensions.
- Algorithms favour sensational content, not responsible speech.
2. Weak Platform Accountability
- No uniform grievance redressal.
- Platforms often delay taking down harmful content unless legally compelled.
3. Fragmented Legal Response
- Multiple FIRs across states for the same post—leads to harassment, forum shopping, and misuse of law.
4. Polarising Content
- Politically or religiously divisive speech increases during elections, riots, or crises.
- Example: Communal trolling, deepfakes, disinformation campaigns.
Challenges in Regulation
| Challenge | Details |
| Balancing Free Speech vs. Regulation | Overregulation may lead to suppression of dissent or creativity |
| Jurisdictional Conflicts | Same post may invite FIRs in multiple states |
| Platform Non-Compliance | Tech giants are governed by foreign laws and may resist Indian rules |
| Ambiguity in ‘Harmful Speech’ | Difficult to define ‘hate’, ‘offensive’, or ‘divisive’ speech uniformly |
| Lack of Digital Literacy | Many users unknowingly spread false or hurtful content |
Policy & Institutional Framework
| Initiative | Status & Gaps |
| IT Rules, 2021 | Mandate content takedown, grievance officers, traceability. |
| Digital India Act (Drafted) | Aims to replace IT Act, 2000 — but still under consultation. |
| Social Media Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) | Redressal mechanism lacks user awareness and enforcement teeth |
| Judicial Guidelines (proposed) | SC hinted at laying down uniform procedural safeguards |
Way Forward
| Priority Area | Suggestions |
| Regulatory Clarity | Finalise and implement Digital India Act with free speech safeguards |
| Self-Regulation & Platform Ethics | Mandate code of ethics, transparency in moderation algorithms |
| Judicial Framework | SC to evolve guidelines on multi-state FIRs, content responsibility |
| Digital Literacy Campaigns | Public education on legal rights and responsible online behavior |
| Stronger Civil Society Role | NGOs, fact-checkers, and user groups to build counter-narratives |
