CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

SC’s Order on Social Media Regulation

31 Aug 2025 GS 2 Polity
SC’s Order on Social Media Regulation Click to view full image


  • Bench: Justices Surya Kant & Joymalya Bagchi.

  • Directive: Union govt. to frame guidelines for regulating social media, in consultation with National Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA).

  • Reason: Influencers commercialising free speech in ways that can hurt sentiments of vulnerable groups.

  • Complaint by SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) support group against stand-up comedians for derogatory remarks.

  • Court’s observation:

    • Free speech ≠ absolute, especially when used for commercial purposes.

    • Guidelines should address evolving challenges of modern communication.

  • Action ordered: Comedians to issue public apologies on YouTube & other platforms.

Free Speech & Constitutional Limits

  • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.

  • Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions allowed on 8 grounds –

    1. Sovereignty & integrity of India

    2. Security of the State

    3. Friendly relations with foreign states

    4. Public order

    5. Decency & morality

    6. Contempt of court

    7. Defamation

    8. Incitement to offence

  • Key Judgments:

    • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Struck down Section 66A IT Act, vague terms like “annoyance” cannot justify restrictions.

    • Kaushal Kishore v. State of U.P. (2023): Grounds in Art. 19(2) are exhaustive; cannot be expanded.

    • Imran Pratapgadhi case (2025): Even speech that discomforts judiciary must be protected.

Commercial Speech

  • Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1959): Commercial ads not free speech if only trade-related.

  • Tata Press v. MTNL (1995): Commercial speech = protected if in public interest (information dissemination).

  • A. Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997): Free speech tied with business must be balanced with societal interests.

  • Distinction:

    • Public interest commercial speech → protected.

    • Purely private/commercial interests → limited protection.

Current Framework

  • IT (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 already regulate platforms.

  • Influencers can be held liable under existing criminal law.

  • Additional regulation must be carefully drafted to avoid overreach.

Implications

  • Push for accountability of influencers & online speech.

  • Risk of overregulation → chilling effect on free expression.



← Back to list