- The Supreme Court ruled freedom of expression must respect individual dignity and face action if misused
- The court asked the Attorney General to draft social media guidelines balancing free speech and others' rights
- Article 21 (right to life) must prevail over Article 19 (freedom of expression), the court said
Three cases, three benches, two days -- the Supreme Court is sending a clear message: freedom of expression is not absolute; it must respect an individual's right to dignity and those misusing this freedom must face action. The top court's strong observations are significant in an era where social media has democratised public opinion, but made us vulnerable to virtual attacks and brutal trolling by strangers, often anonymous.
Case 1: Article 19 vs Article 21
Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi today heard a case related to stand-up comics and podcasters, including Samay Raina, who are in trouble for controversial remarks in their shows. The influencers have been asked to respond to a petition that flagged their objectionable remarks on persons with disabilities. Sources said the court has taken serious note of these remarks.
The top court also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines that balance freedom of speech and expression and rights of others.
When Attorney General R Venkataramani said the proposed guidelines need to be discussed, Justice Kant said an open debate is needed. "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," he observed.
"Suppose a race takes place between Article 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump over Article 19," the court said. While Article 19 relates to freedom of expression, Article 21 pertains to the right to life. This is especially significant at a time when trolling and online attacks create mental stress and anxiety, and can also incite violence.
The court noted that it needs to protect citizens' rights and ensure that nobody's dignity is violated.
Case 2: 'Freedom Being Abused'
A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a cartoonist's petition for relief after an FIR was registered against him for allegedly sharing objectionable content on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers.
"Log kisi ko bhi, kuch bhi keh dete hain (People say anything to anyone). We will have to do something about it)," the bench said.
While granting relief to the cartoonist Hemant Malviya, the bench noted that if he continued to share offensive social media posts, the Madhya Pradesh government would be free to take action.
Malviya was accused of hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus and disturbing communal harmony.
When his counsel, Vrinda Grover, said that the cartoon could be said to be in "poor taste". "But is it an offence?" she asked.
Justice Dhulia replied, "Whatever we may do with this case, but this is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused."
Case 3: 'Who Wants State To Step In'
On Monday, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition by Wajahat Khan, who filed a complaint against influencer Sharmistha Panoli in a hate speech case. Khan has now been arrested for his social media posts. He has said complaints have been registered against him in several states. He said these cases were in retaliation for his complaint against Panoli.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that citizens must understand the value of freedom of expression. "...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)," she said.
The bench remarked that reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech are needed and it cannot be a "100% absolute right". "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?" he said.
Focus On Free Speech Limits In Social Media Era
Strong remarks by the top court judges in cases relating to freedom of speech suggest that the court may have decided, as a whole, to take a strong stand on objectionable social media remarks that often cite freedom of expression to seek legal relief.
Earlier, in May, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai took note of objectionable social media posts targeting Justice Surya Kant. The Chief Justice had said the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but this right comes with reasonable restrictions.
NDTV spoke to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on this subject. "Internet as a medium of communication is totally different and distinct from conventional media through which freedom of speech has been exercised so far. The anonymity involved and the rapid global reach and the potential to cause severe personal and societal damage through misuse of social media require a totally different judicial treatment."
The Centre's top lawyer said traditional jurisprudence developed for print and electronic media in earlier decades cannot be used to address the challenges posed by social media. "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," Mr Mehta said.
