Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to frame guidelines for regulating social media, stressing that free speech cannot be misused for commercial gain at the cost of public dignity.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Court’s Order (Introduction, Court’s Directives, Constitutional Framework, Debate on Free Speech, Broader Implications, etc.)

Introduction

• Recently, the Supreme Court of India directed the Union government to draft comprehensive guidelines for regulating social media content.
• The order comes amid growing concerns over the misuse of free speech by influencers and digital creators for commercial gain, often at the cost of public sentiment and individual dignity.
• The directive marks a significant step in balancing constitutional freedoms with accountability in the digital age.

The Supreme Court’s Directive

• A two-judge bench stressed that while free speech is a constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a), it cannot be used purely for commercial purposes in a manner that offends vulnerable groups.
• The case originated from a petition filed by a non-profit supporting individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), who alleged derogatory remarks made by comedians had violated their dignity.
• The court ordered the Centre to frame regulations in consultation with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) and also directed the comedians involved to issue public apologies on their social media platforms.

Constitutional Framework on Free Speech

• The Constitution permits restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) on limited grounds, including:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the State
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order
• Decency and morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to offences

• The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that restrictions cannot extend beyond these grounds.
• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for criminalising vague expressions like “annoyance” or “hatred,” affirming that even speech that “offends, shocks, or disturbs” remains constitutionally protected.

The Debate on Commercial Speech

• The regulation of commercial speech has had an evolving jurisprudence in India:

• In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1959), the Court held that advertisements tied to trade and commerce do not qualify as free speech.
• However, in Tata Press v. MTNL (1995), the Court recognised commercial speech as constitutionally protected, since advertisements serve public interest by disseminating information.
• Later judgments, such as A. Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997), reiterated the need to balance commercial expression with societal interests.

• This evolution demonstrates the Court’s nuanced approach to distinguishing between public-interest commercial expression and purely profit-driven content.

Existing Legal Framework for Digital Media

• Social media companies in India are already governed by the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 under the IT Act, 2000.
• These rules require platforms to restrict obscene, pornographic, or harmful content.
• Influencers and online creators are also subject to criminal law if their speech amounts to defamation, incitement, or other recognised offences.
• Experts caution that any additional guidelines must be carefully drafted to avoid infringing upon free speech, given the Supreme Court’s strong history of protecting this right.

Broader Implications

• The Court’s intervention raises critical questions about the future of free speech in the digital age.
• With nearly 491 million Indians active on social media, the regulation of online platforms is no longer just a legal issue but also a societal necessity.
• While the move is aimed at curbing abusive or derogatory content disguised as entertainment or marketing, it also places the responsibility on the government to ensure that regulation does not become a tool of censorship.
• Legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court’s “polyvocality” in free speech jurisprudence, arising from differing judicial interpretations, has resulted in inconsistencies.
• This ruling, therefore, may provide an opportunity to consolidate principles of accountability without diluting constitutional protections.