Context:

In a significant observation with wide-reaching implications, the Supreme Court of India has initiated a discussion on the need for citizen-level guidelines to regulate divisive content on social media platforms. The court emphasised that while freedom of speech and expression is a core constitutional right, it must be accompanied by self-restraint, responsibility, and a commitment to the values of fraternity and secularism.

• The remarks came during the hearing of a plea filed by a resident of Kolkata seeking the consolidation of multiple FIRs filed against him across various states for allegedly divisive social media posts. While the court refrained from discussing the content of the posts directly, it used the occasion to raise larger constitutional concerns about how freedom of speech is being exploited in the online space, causing social division and legal overload.

What Led to the Supreme Court's Intervention?

• The petitioner had been booked under multiple FIRs across different states, including West Bengal, Assam, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Haryana for allegedly inflammatory posts on social media.
• The West Bengal Police had also arrested the petitioner and registered two FIRs.
• Later, on June 23, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive action be taken against him in the FIRs filed outside West Bengal.
• The petitioner’s lawyer clarified that while the posts were not defended, they had been deleted and an apology had been issued.

In response to the growing number of such cases and the burden they place on the judicial and policing system, the court expanded the scope of the case to address the systemic abuse of free speech in digital spaces.

Key Observations of the Court:

1. Free Speech Is Valuable but Not Absolute

• The court reiterated that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
• These restrictions include grounds such as public order, morality, decency, and the integrity of the nation.
• Citizens must understand the value of this right and not misuse it for abuse or divisive rhetoric.

2. Call for Self-Restraint by Citizens

• The court questioned: “Why can’t the citizens regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression.”
• It warned that if citizens fail to exercise self-restraint, then the state will be forced to step in. This is undesirable in a democracy.
• It stressed that one of the fundamental duties of citizens under Article 51A is to uphold the unity and integrity of the country, which is being increasingly violated through online behaviour.

3. Not Censorship but Democratic Values

• The court clearly stated that it was not proposing censorship, but rather looking at norms for responsible citizen behaviour online in the interest of:
• Fraternity
• Secularism
• Dignity of individuals

4. Abuse of Free Speech is Clogging Courts

• The bench expressed concern that unregulated social media abuse is resulting in a flood of litigation and FIRs, putting pressure on both:
• Judicial institutions, and
• Police resources, which could otherwise be engaged in serious crimes.
• This is not only wasteful but unsustainable, and a structured citizen-based framework for responsible online behaviour is urgently needed.

Horizontal vs. Vertical Application of Fundamental Rights:

A key constitutional principle highlighted was the horizontal application of rights:

• Traditionally, fundamental rights were enforceable only against the state (vertical application).
• However, in a 2023 Supreme Court judgment, a horizontal approach was recognised.
• This means a citizen can also be held accountable for violating another citizen’s fundamental rights—a crucial principle in the age of online speech where most harm is inflicted between private individuals.

This principle strengthens the legal foundation for framing citizen-level obligations in the context of digital speech and behaviour.

Discussion on Social Media and Hate Speech:

The court recognised the toxic nature of online discourse, particularly how hate speech and polarising opinions thrive due to a lack of editorial oversight on social media platforms.

Fraternity as a Counterforce

• The bench emphasised that fraternity among citizens, as envisioned in the Preamble, could serve as a powerful antidote to hate speech.
• The idea is that if citizens uphold mutual respect, divisive content will lose traction and relevance.

The Role of Public Reaction

• It was noted that the public reaction is the "oxygen" for such speech—if people ignore or socially boycott divisive content instead of reacting or reposting it, its reach will decline.
• Citizens need to reflect on what they promote or respond to online.

The Need for Awareness and Social Movements

• The court discussed the difficulty of enforcing self-restraint, especially in a digital ecosystem where there is no editorial gatekeeping.
• However, it acknowledged the potential of social movements to raise awareness, identify hate speech early, and create a collective culture of rejection.

Parallel Concern Raised in Other Cases

In May 2024, another bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a separate case involving a YouTuber, had flagged similar concerns. The issue was how to regulate social media content without infringing upon the freedom of speech. This indicates a consistent judicial concern about the lack of accountability on social platforms.

Implications for Governance, Society, and Law:

1. Legal and Policy Frameworks

• This case opens up the path for the judiciary to recommend or create citizen-level protocols that work parallel to existing statutory frameworks like:
• The Information Technology Act, 2000
• IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

2. Governance Challenges

• The state faces limitations in regulating individual-level speech without being accused of censorship or political bias.
• Empowering citizens to regulate themselves may provide a democratic middle ground.

3. Educational and Cultural Change

• The ultimate solution lies in building awareness, especially among the youth, about the responsibility attached to digital speech.
• Incorporating constitutional values in educational content and promoting digital civility campaigns are key steps forward.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's remarks on the regulation of speech on social media come at a time when digital communication is shaping public opinion, political discourse, and social harmony. The court has rightly shifted the conversation from censorship by the state to self-regulation by citizens. This approach recognises the power of speech in a democracy but also highlights the individual responsibility that accompanies that power. The idea is not to silence citizens, but to create a digital culture grounded in fraternity, mutual respect, and constitutional morality. As the judiciary continues to explore frameworks for this balance, the responsibility now also lies with civil society, educators, and citizens to reflect, engage, and ensure that freedom does not become a tool of harm, but a means of building a just and inclusive society.