New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, in a significant observation on July 14, 2025, expressed deep concern over the increasing abuse of the right to free speech, particularly on social media platforms. The court emphasized the urgent need for citizens to exercise self-restraint and regulation to curb divisive and abusive content, highlighting the importance of fraternity among citizens to foster social harmony. The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, also mulled framing guidelines to regulate harmful social media posts, signaling a proactive judicial approach to tackling the growing issue of hate speech and misinformation online.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Freedom of Speech
The Supreme Court underscored that while having an opinion is a fundamental right, expressing it in a manner that abuses this freedom can lead to unnecessary litigation and overburden law enforcement agencies. Justices Nagarathna and Viswanathan stressed that the right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, comes with reasonable restrictions. They noted that using free speech to instigate divisive tendencies, especially on social media, must be curtailed to maintain social cohesion.
The bench clarified that their intention was not to impose censorship but to promote fraternity, secularism, and individual dignity. “We are not speaking about censorship. But in the interest of fraternity, secularism, and dignity of individuals… We will have to go into this beyond this petition,” the bench remarked during a hearing. The court was addressing a petition filed by Kolkata resident Wazahat Khan, who sought the consolidation of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him across different states over his social media posts. These FIRs were filed following Khan’s complaint, which led to the arrest of social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli on June 9, 2025, for her own controversial posts.
Justice Viswanathan emphasized that fostering greater fraternity among citizens is key to reducing mutual hatred. “If citizens want to enjoy the fundamental right of speech and expression, it should be with reasonable restrictions. There must be self-restraint and regulation,” Justice Nagarathna added. She further highlighted one of the fundamental duties under the Indian Constitution: to uphold the unity and integrity of India. The court urged citizens to take the initiative in regulating their online behavior, warning that failure to do so might necessitate state intervention. “Why can’t citizens regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don’t, the state will have to step in… nobody wants the state to step in,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights
The Supreme Court also referenced the Kaushal Kishor Case (2023), which recognized the horizontal application of fundamental rights. This means that the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19, is enforceable not only against the state (vertical application) but also against other citizens (horizontal application). This legal principle underscores the responsibility of individuals to respect the rights of others while exercising their own, particularly in the context of social media interactions.
The Dual Impact of Social Media on Free Speech
The Supreme Court’s remarks come at a time when social media has become a double-edged sword, offering both opportunities and challenges in Exercising freedom of speech. The document highlights the positive and negative impacts of social media on this fundamental right.
Positive Impacts of Social Media
- Democratization of Voice: Social media platforms have empowered marginalized and underrepresented communities by providing them a space to express their views and concerns. This inclusivity has strengthened the democratic fabric of the nation.
- Strengthening Participative Democracy: By enabling citizens to engage in political and social discourse, social media has fostered greater participation in democratic processes, allowing for diverse perspectives to be heard.
- Accountability and Transparency: Both citizens and media outlets leverage social media to hold authorities accountable and raise issues of public importance, thereby promoting transparency in governance.
Negative Impacts of Social Media
- Misinformation and Fake News: The unchecked spread of false information on social media can lead to panic, riots, and defamation, undermining public trust and safety.
- Hate Speech and Abuse: Online harassment, trolling, and abusive language have severe social and mental health impacts on individuals, often targeting vulnerable groups.
- Algorithmic Bias: Social media algorithms tend to amplify certain types of content while limiting exposure to diverse ideas, creating echo chambers that can exacerbate polarization and divisiveness.
Justice A.S. Oka on Hate Speech and Social Harmony
In a related development, Supreme Court Justice A.S. Oka, speaking at Columbia Law School on April 4, 2025, addressed the issue of hate speech in India, particularly its targeting of religious minorities and oppressed communities. He noted that many hate speeches are delivered by political leaders seeking electoral advantages, often provoking the majority community against minorities. “There are instances in India where there is hate speech against religious minorities of India and where speeches are made to provoke the majority to attack the minorities… Most of the hate speeches in India are against religious minorities and oppressed classes,” Justice Oka stated.
He emphasized that such speeches disrupt social harmony and are punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Representation of People Act. However, Justice Oka advocated for public awareness and education as the most effective means to combat hate speech. “In our preamble, the citizens are assured various freedoms, and one is fraternity. Fraternity is important to the preamble, to the constitution, and if we are able to educate masses about fraternity, instances of hate speeches will go down,” he said.
Justice Oka also cautioned against over-restricting free speech in the name of curbing hate speech. He cited a recent judgment he delivered, stating that freedom of expression should not be judged based on the perceptions of a weak-minded individual. “Someone may say some hate speech is delivered. Just because some individuals think so, it doesn’t become hate speech. It cannot be based on individual perceptions, and thereby you will end up violating freedom of speech and expression,” he explained.
Balancing Free Speech and Social Harmony
Justice Oka further highlighted the importance of free speech, satire, and stand-up comedy in maintaining dignity in a democratic society. “If there is no free speech, stand-up comedy, satire, then the right to live with dignity will disappear,” he remarked. He also stressed the significance of the right to dissent and protest, particularly in academic settings. “In democracy, dissent is also very important. It is necessary in every healthy democracy, and there is a right to protest also. Universities should allow students to protest if they are suffering from injustice, and hate speech provisions cannot be used to suppress the same,” he said.
The Supreme Court’s broader approach, as articulated by Justices Nagarathna, Viswanathan, and Oka, seeks to balance the protection of free speech with the need to maintain social harmony. The court acknowledged that while hate speech is a punishable offense, the judiciary must ensure that restrictions do not unduly infringe upon the right to free expression. “Courts need to come down heavily on hate speeches which are offenses but also protect free speech, expression, and the right to protest. This area will always have a scope to evolve and grow,” Justice Oka concluded.
The Path Forward: Self-Regulation and Potential Guidelines
The Supreme Court’s call for self-regulation among citizens underscores the need for a collective effort to foster responsible online behavior. The bench’s consideration of framing guidelines to regulate abusive and divisive social media posts indicates a proactive stance in addressing the challenges posed by the digital age. While the court is wary of state intervention, it recognizes that failure to self-regulate may necessitate stricter measures to preserve unity and integrity.
The case of Wazahat Khan, whose petition prompted these observations, highlights the real-world implications of unchecked social media activity. The FIRs against Khan, stemming from his posts and subsequent complaints, illustrate the legal and social complexities surrounding online speech. Similarly, the arrest of Sharmistha Panoli underscores the consequences of divisive content, which can escalate tensions and lead to legal repercussions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s recent remarks on the abuse of free speech on social media reflect a growing concern about the impact of online behavior on India’s social fabric. By emphasizing fraternity, self-restraint, and the responsible exercise of fundamental rights, the court is urging citizens to take ownership of their digital interactions. The potential introduction of guidelines to regulate abusive and divisive posts signals a judicial commitment to addressing this issue while preserving the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.
As India navigates the complexities of free speech in the digital era, the Supreme Court’s observations serve as a timely reminder of the delicate balance between individual rights and collective harmony. By fostering public awareness, promoting education, and encouraging self-regulation, the nation can work toward reducing hate speech and misinformation while upholding the principles of democracy and fraternity.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What did the Supreme Court of India say about the abuse of free speech on social media?
The Supreme Court, in a hearing on July 14, 2025, expressed concern over the increasing abuse of the right to free speech, particularly on social media. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan emphasized that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, it comes with reasonable restrictions. They noted that using free speech to instigate divisive tendencies, spread hate, or engage in abusive behavior online leads to unnecessary litigation and burdens law enforcement. The court urged citizens to exercise self-restraint and regulation to maintain fraternity, secularism, and individual dignity.
2. Why is the Supreme Court considering guidelines for social media posts?
The Supreme Court is mulling the idea of framing guidelines to regulate abusive and divisive social media posts to address the growing issue of hate speech and misinformation. The bench clarified that this is not about censorship but about fostering responsible online behavior to protect fraternity and social harmony. The court’s consideration stems from cases like that of Wazahat Khan, where multiple FIRs were filed over social media posts, highlighting the legal and social challenges posed by unchecked online content.
3. What is the horizontal application of fundamental rights mentioned by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court referenced the Kaushal Kishor Case (2023), which recognized the horizontal application of fundamental rights. This means that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 is enforceable not only against the state (vertical application) but also against other citizens (horizontal application). In the context of social media, this implies that individuals must respect the rights of others while exercising their own freedom of speech, ensuring that their actions do not harm or infringe upon others’ rights.
4. What are the positive and negative impacts of social media on free speech, as highlighted by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court document outlines both positive and negative impacts of social media on freedom of speech:
Negative Impacts: It facilitates the spread of misinformation and fake news, which can cause panic, riots, or defamation. It also enables hate speech and online abuse, affecting individuals’ mental and social well-being, and algorithmic biases amplify certain content, reducing exposure to diverse ideas and fostering polarization.
Positive Impacts: Social media democratizes voices by empowering marginalized communities, strengthens participative democracy through political and social discourse, and promotes accountability and transparency by allowing citizens and media to hold authorities accountable.
5. What did Justice A.S. Oka say about hate speech and its impact on social harmony?
On April 4, 2025, at Columbia Law School, Justice A.S. Oka highlighted that most hate speech in India targets religious minorities and oppressed communities, often by political leaders for electoral gains. He noted that such speeches disrupt social harmony and are punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of People Act. Justice Oka advocated for public awareness and education to reduce hate speech, emphasizing fraternity as a core constitutional value. He also stressed the importance of protecting free speech, satire, and the right to dissent while ensuring that hate speech laws are not misused to suppress legitimate expression or protests.
