SUPREME COURT BENCHES EXPRESS CONCERN OVER MISUSE OF FREE SPEECH BY CITIZENS:

Over the span of two days, three separate benches of the Supreme Court raised concerns about the increasing misuse of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, especially in the context of online content. These observations came while the Court dealt with distinct cases involving offensive social media posts, allegedly insensitive comedy content, and derogatory cartoons. The Court’s remarks reflected a broader concern about the growing need for self-restraint among citizens, the protection of individual dignity, and the possibility of regulating digital content.

On July 14, a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, while hearing a plea by Kolkata-based Wazahat Khan for clubbing FIRs filed against him across various states over controversial social media posts, remarked that citizens were increasingly abusing the right to free speech. Justice Nagarathna observed that such abuse was clogging the legal system and stressed the need for self-restraint on social media to avoid state intervention. She emphasized that although Article 19 protects the right to free speech against state action, citizens must recognize their duty to exercise this right responsibly. She stated that one of the fundamental duties of citizens is to uphold national unity and integrity, and if citizens fail to appreciate the value of their freedoms, the state would be forced to intervene. Justice Viswanathan added that the solution lies in citizens disengaging from such content and posed a question about how awareness could be built to promote responsible speech. The Court noted that the issue extended beyond the petitioner and pertained to the broader values of fraternity, secularism, and individual dignity. The bench asked both the petitioner’s counsel and the State to assist in formulating guidelines and extended Khan's interim protection from arrest outside West Bengal, listing the matter for further hearing in four weeks.

On July 15, another bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard three petitions, including two from YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani seeking clubbing of FIRs, and one from SMA Cure Foundation against several comedians for making jokes deemed insensitive to persons with disabilities. The Court viewed the matter as serious, highlighting that the dignity of persons with disabilities was involved. Justice Kant stated that any guidelines issued must align with constitutional values and balance freedom with responsibility. He pointed out that Article 19 cannot override Article 21, which safeguards life and dignity, and in any conflict between the two, Article 21 must prevail. The bench also noted that such regulatory guidelines must not be misused and expressed willingness to receive suggestions from all stakeholders.

On the same day, a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar reprimanded cartoonist Hemant Malviya for an allegedly inflammatory cartoon about the Prime Minister and the RSS, originally related to COVID vaccines. Justice Dhulia remarked that the cartoon showed immaturity and criticized the overall tone of Malviya’s social media posts, even noting the offensive nature of some comments from members of the legal profession. The bench granted interim protection from arrest but directed that pleadings be completed by the next hearing date.

Despite these recent concerns, the Court has earlier upheld the importance of free speech. In April, a bench led by Justice Abhay Oka set aside an order imposing costs on Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawala after quashing an FIR against them. The Court emphasized that its role is not to engage in moral policing and that artistic and critical expressions must be protected. In another ruling, the same bench quashed an FIR against MP Imran Pratapgarhi, reiterating that literature, poetry, and satire are integral to a dignified life and must be defended. The Court reminded the police that they are also bound to uphold the Constitution, and cautioned against judging speech from the viewpoint of intolerant minds.