Introduction
On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India asked the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media content, noting that influencers often commercialise speech in ways that offend vulnerable groups. The case arose from derogatory remarks made by comedians about persons with Spinal Muscular Atrophy. While well-intentioned, the order has raised concerns about overregulation of free speech.
Why in the news
The Supreme Court of India’s intervention is significant because it directs the executive to draft specific rules for social media despite existing laws such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) already providing mechanisms. For the first time, the Court has nudged the government toward formal regulation triggered by a single incident, raising alarms of censorship and judicial overreach.
The presence or absence of a regulatory vacuum
- Existing provisions: FIRs can be filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The IT Act already empowers courts or the executive to order takedowns.
- Opaque enforcement: Takedowns often occur without notifying the affected individual, undermining natural justice.
- Critics’ view: No regulatory vacuum exists; additional rules may be an overreaction to a single case.
The question of dignity as a ground for restricting free speech
- Constitutional limits: Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India exhaustively lists permissible restrictions, security of the state, public order, decency, morality, etc. Dignity is not among them.
- Judicial precedents: In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court of India upheld criminal defamation, indirectly protecting individual dignity, but did not treat dignity as an independent ground.
- Slippery slope risk: Recognising dignity as a separate basis for restriction could legitimise expansive censorship.
The risk of silencing uncomfortable speech
- Chilling effect: Overbroad regulations may deter comedians, satirists, and artists from bold expression.
- Supreme Court stance: In March 2025, in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the Court quashed charges against a Member of Parliament, reaffirming that Article 19(1)(a) protects even disturbing or offensive views.
- Censorship creep: Proposals like the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill may expand state control over independent creators.
The place of commercial speech in free expression
- Judicial recognition: In Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1962) and Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (1995), the Supreme Court of India affirmed that commercial speech falls under Article 19(1)(a).
- Commerce and speech: Just as newspapers rely on advertisements, comedians and influencers rely on monetisation. Profit motive does not make speech less deserving of protection.
- Criticism: Comedy and satire do not neatly fall into the narrow category of “commercial speech,” traditionally reserved for advertisements.
Judicial polyvocality and consistency of precedent
- Court’s nature: Divergent views are part of common law, but binding precedent ensures continuity.
- Problem here: Directing the executive to draft rules risks giving regulations undue legitimacy and making constitutional challenges harder.
- Judicial discipline: When coordinate Benches depart from earlier rulings, proper procedure is referral to a larger Bench.
Safeguards needed in future regulations
- Transparent review: Any regulation must ensure robust review mechanisms and fairness in takedown procedures.
- Broad consultation: Stakeholder engagement should extend beyond industry associations to include civil society and affected communities.
- Opacity concerns: Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its rules (2009) are already opaque; future regulations must not repeat these flaws.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intention to protect dignity is laudable, but creating fresh regulations risks undermining the freedom of expression. India already has legal frameworks to tackle offensive content. Expanding restrictions based on vague concepts like dignity may lead to excessive censorship, weaken democratic discourse, and erode artistic freedom.
Value Addition |
Social Media Regulation in IndiaExisting legal framework:
Judicial interventions:
Comparative Global Perspective
International Bodies and Global Norms
Good Examples
Way Forward for India
|
UPSC Relevance
[UPSC 2013] Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Linkage: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for being vague and violating Article 19(1)(a) beyond the limits of Article 19(2). The present debate on regulating commercial speech on digital platforms raises a similar concern, as introducing “dignity” as a restriction risks the same arbitrariness. Both highlight the constitutional need for clear, proportionate, and narrowly defined limits on free speech in India.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024