Supreme Court seeks guidelines balancing free speech and dignity

Source: The post Supreme Court seeks guidelines balancing free speech and dignity has been created, based on the article “Should commercial speech on digital platforms be regulated?” published in “The Hindu ” on 5 September 2025. Supreme Court seeks guidelines balancing free speech and dignity.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Constitution of India —historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure And functioning of the Judiciary.

Context: On August 25, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to draft social-media rules, citing commercialised speech that may hurt vulnerable groups. Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi sought consultation with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association after a disability group flagged derogatory comedy content.

For detailed information on Indian Courts Are Managing Free Speech, Not Defending It read this article here

Is there a regulatory vacuum requiring new guidelines?

1. Existing legal tools were already invoked: FIRs in Maharashtra and Assam cited the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the IT Act, 2000 over a YouTube skit, “India’s Got Latent.” This formed the basis for the Court’s consideration of the complaint against named comedians.
2. The IT Act enables takedowns but lacks transparency: Courts or the executive can order removals. In practice, actions often occur secretly and with weak adherence to natural justice. This opacity, not absence of law, is the core concern raised.
3. Building a new framework from one episode is an overreaction: The jokes may be in poor taste, but existing provisions exist. Creating elaborate new rules on the back of a single episode “fixes what is not broken.”

Can “dignity” be a ground to restrict speech?

1. Article 19(2) does not list dignity as a ground: Restrictions are exhaustive: security of the state, public order, decency, morality, and others. Treating dignity—an amorphous concept—as an independent ground risks a slippery slope.
2. Courts may act to do “complete justice.”: Concerns about participation and dignity of persons with disabilities are legitimate. The Court can consider wider social effects of online speech within its constitutional mandate.
3. Limits must be lawful and proportionate: Any restriction needs a duly enacted law and must pass proportionality. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), criminal defamation was upheld, recognising dignity to sustain that remedy. Yet elevating dignity alone invites expansive censorship.

Would new rules chill speech deemed unpalatable?

1. Independent “dignity” tests would deter artists: When morality or defamation overlaps with dignity, limits may apply. But dignity as a stand-alone basis is not defensible and would chill comedians, satirists, and others.
2. Uncomfortable speech has constitutional value: Literature and stand-up often confront society. The Court has protected speech that offends or disturbs; a March order quashed a criminal case against a poem by a politician, reaffirming Article 19(1)(a).
3. Regulatory overreach risks mass censorship: Reviving the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill could place independent creators under scrutiny. If “social value” is majoritarian, inconvenient voices may be suppressed.

Does profit-driven speech justify stricter control?

1. Commercial speech serves public discourse: The “marketplace of ideas” includes paid expression. In Sakal Papers(1962), limits tying newspaper pages to price were struck down as curtailing Article 19(1)(a).
2. Livelihood does not dilute protection: A comedian must earn to perform; profit motive alone cannot justify regulation of speech.
3. Jurisprudence covers commercial speech, but creators’ speech is not merely commercial: Courts have treated commercial speech as protected. Comedians, journalists, and satirists are not traditionally categorised as commercial speakers.

How should institutions proceed, and what safeguards are vital?

1. Polyvocality does not erase precedent: As a court of record, the Supreme Court follows earlier law; even with new facts, the essence of precedent endures.
2. Court-mandated rule-making raises constitutional hurdles: Directing the executive to frame regulations confers ordinary and reinforced legitimacy, blurring boundaries and making later challenges harder.
3. Coordinate Bench conflicts require referral: When a Bench of equal strength departs from another, discipline demands reference to a larger Bench.
4. Safeguards must ensure transparency and inclusion: Build strong review mechanisms and a free-speech ethos in enforcement. Consult all affected stakeholders, not only those favouring restrictions. Address opacity in Section 69A/Blocking Rules processes, including notice to those whose content is removed.

Question for practice:

Examine whether new social media regulations are necessary in India despite existing legal mechanisms.