Why in news?
The Supreme Court of India heard two cases involving inflammatory posts and cartoons on social media. The judges warned that the growing misuse of free speech online fuels hatred, places a burden on courts and may invite state intervention if citizens fail to exercise restraint.
Background
- Freedom of expression is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It allows citizens to speak, write, draw or share opinions without censorship.
- The right is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions to protect sovereignty, public order, decency and morality.
- Landmark judgments such as Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras and Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India have clarified that laws restricting speech must be precise and proportionate.
Growing misuse of online speech
- Social media use has exploded in India, with hundreds of millions of users on platforms like X, Instagram and Facebook. Viral posts can spread quickly across states and communities.
- Objectionable religious posts have triggered communal tensions. In one case, a user’s derogatory remarks against a deity led to multiple police complaints across the country.
- Satirical cartoons sometimes cross the line into defamation. A cartoon targeting the Prime Minister and socio‑cultural organisations prompted legal scrutiny and public outcry.
- Anonymity and fake profiles encourage some people to post provocative material with little regard for its impact.
Implications for society and governance
- Polarisation and hate crimes: Online abuse inflames real‑world tensions and contributes to vigilantism and mob violence.
- Judicial burden: Courts are flooded with petitions seeking to quash multiple FIRs or to transfer cases across states, slowing the justice system.
- Threat to unity: Abuse of free speech undermines the fundamental duty of citizens to promote fraternity and integrity.
- International reputation: Persistent online hate may tarnish India’s image as a vibrant democracy that balances liberty with responsibility.
Supreme Court observations
- In the case of a social media user accused of insulting religious sentiments, the Court stressed that citizens should value freedom of speech and avoid provoking religious divisions.
- In a separate case involving a satirical cartoon, the judges noted that fundamental rights must be accompanied by self‑discipline. They warned that repeated abuse could lead to state intervention.
- The Court underscored the “horizontal” dimension of rights, asking how fundamental rights apply between citizens on digital platforms.
Way forward
- Digital civility code: Encourage citizens to follow voluntary guidelines for respectful online behaviour.
- Platform accountability: Require social media companies to audit algorithms and limit amplification of hate speech and misinformation.
- Clarify horizontal rights: Develop jurisprudence on how fundamental rights apply between private individuals in digital spaces.
- Legal updates: Modernise the Information Technology Act and criminal procedure to handle fake news and online abuse swiftly, without curbing legitimate expression.
- Digital literacy campaigns: Teach ethical online conduct in schools, workplaces and community programmes.
Conclusion
The right to free speech is central to democracy, but its misuse harms social harmony. Citizens must practice self‑restraint and respect when using digital platforms. Otherwise, the state may be compelled to regulate content—something no open society desires.