The Supreme Court of India has delivered a massive message: “Freedom of speech and expression has limits in the age of social media”. Two judges, 3 bench have delivered the message, when it clashes with another fundamental right, the right to dignity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has, within just two days and across three benches, delivered a massive message: freedom of speech is not absolute, especially when it clashes with another fundamental right: the right to dignity.
The court’s recent observations underline a growing need to re-examine how Article 19(1)(a), the right to freedom of speech and expression, functions in a digitally democratized, yet dangerously unregulated, social media era.
Case 1: Article 19 vs Article 21
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard a case involving stand-up comedians and podcasters, including Samay Raina, accused of making offensive remarks about persons with disabilities. The court took serious note and sought responses from the influencers named in the petition.
The court also directed Attorney General R Venkataramani to draft social media guidelines that strike a balance between free speech (Article 19) and the right to life and dignity (Article 21). Emphasizing the need for public debate, Justice Kant remarked that constitutional principles must guide these rules and encouraged participation from all stakeholders. He said,
“There are many free advisors in the market. Ignoring them… the guidelines should be in conformity with constitutional principles balancing freedom and where the rights and duties start. We will have an open debate on such guidelines. let all stakeholders also come and give their viewpoints.”
The bench observed, “If a race takes place between Article 19 and 21, Article 21 has to win.” The statement reinforces the court’s concern over the rising mental distress and potential violence caused by online trolling and abuse.
The bench remarked,
“The right to dignity emanates from the same Constitution which the other people cite to protect their right to speech. Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) cannot prevail over Article 21 (right to life and dignity). This is what it has to be. If there is a race between Articles 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump Article 19.”
Case Title: RANVEER GAUTAM ALLAHABADIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Case 2: ‘Freedom Being Abused’
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar heard a petition by cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who sought relief after an FIR was filed against him for allegedly sharing objectionable content related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers.
While the court granted interim relief, it made a pointed observation: “Log kisi ko bhi, kuch bhi keh dete hain” (People say anything to anyone), referring to growing judicial concern over the misuse of free speech on social media.
Malviya was accused of hurting religious sentiments and disturbing communal harmony. His counsel, Vrinda Grover, argued that the cartoon may be in “poor taste” but questioned whether it constituted a legal offence.
Justice Dhulia responded firmly: “This is definitely a case where freedom of speech and expression is being abused.”
Case Title: Hemant Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24617 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Case 3: ‘Who Wants State To Step In’
On 14th July, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan heard a petition by Wajahat Khan, who had filed a hate speech complaint against influencer Sharmistha Panoli. Khan himself was later arrested over his own social media posts and claimed multiple retaliatory complaints were filed against him across states.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna emphasized the need for self-regulation, stating:
“…why can’t the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don’t, then the State will step in and who wants the State to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in (sic).”
The bench observed that freedom of speech is right with reasonable restriction, and with the rise of digital platforms, many are misusing it. They criticized the ease with which harmful content is shared online, asking:
Citizens are misusing this freedom. They just press a button and everything is posted online. Why are courts flooded with such cases? Why shouldn’t there be guidelines for citizens?”
Case Title: WAZAHAT KHAN vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 247/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Free Speech Limits In Social Media Era
Recent strong observations by Supreme Court judges suggest a coordinated judicial effort to address the growing misuse of freedom of speech on social media platforms. In multiple cases, the court emphasized that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced with reasonable restrictions, especially when individual dignity or public harmony is at stake.
In the month of May, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had also flagged the issue after objectionable posts targeted Justice Surya Kant. He reiterated that free speech under the Constitution is subject to limits.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has highlighted the unique challenges of the digital age, stating that social media, unlike traditional media, is marked by anonymity, vast reach, and potential for serious harm. He stressed that existing legal frameworks designed for print and broadcast media are no longer sufficient.
Mehta criticized social platforms for ignoring statutory regulations and warned of the dangerous consequences of unregulated digital expression. Expressing hope in the judiciary, he said India is poised to deliver a landmark judgment that could serve as a global model for regulating free speech in the internet age. He said,
“Social Media platforms monetise the addictive nature of the human race and arrogantly refuse to even recognise reasonable restrictions, much less follow even statutory regulations. This results in dangerous consequences. I am sure our judiciary will suitably respond by giving meaningful interpretation to the reasonability of restrictions, as is being done in other countries. Every nation is grappling with this menace. I am sure India will lead in giving a solution to the world through a landmark judgment.”
Click Here to Read More Reports on Freedom of Speech
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Samay Raina
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
