Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court, while hearing a case involving insensitive remarks about persons with disabilities, asked the Union Government to frame guidelines to regulate social media conduct, including podcasts and online shows. It recognized the need to balance Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) with Article 21 (right to live with dignity).

Key Observations by the Court:

• Free speech cannot be absolute, especially when it hurts sentiments of varied communities.
• Influencers commercialise speech, which increases impact and hence, responsibility.
• Called for effective consequences, not mere formalities, for violations.
• Emphasized sensitisation, not just punishment.

Constitutional Balance:

• Freedom of Speech (Art. 19(1)(a))
  A fundamental right but subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) (public order, morality, decency, etc.).
  Commercialised or insensitive speech may cross into prohibited territory (e.g., hate speech, discrimination).
• Right to Dignity (Art. 21):
  The right to life includes dignity, especially for marginalised groups like persons with disabilities.
  SC noted that insensitive humor “smashes the constitutional objective” of inclusion.

Challenges in Regulating Digital Content:

·        Subjectivity of Offence: What's humorous for one may be hurtful to another.

·        Freedom vs. Regulation: Striking a balance without slipping into censorship.

·        Vast, fast content spread: Social media platforms lack uniform self-regulation.

·        Jurisdictional and enforcement limitations in cross-border content.

Social Media Regulation in India:

·        Social media regulation in India is primarily governed by the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021.

·        These rules empower the government to issue guidelines for intermediaries, ensuring content moderation, grievance redressal, and user safety.

·        The Digital India Act, which was recently passed, seeks to offer a more comprehensive and adaptive framework for the digital ecosystem.

Intermediary Responsibilities:

Social media platforms are considered intermediaries and enjoy “safe harbor” protections provided they comply with due diligence norms. This includes the obligation to take down illegal, harmful, or misleading content — such as hate speech, terrorism-related posts, and misinformation — within specified timelines.

Way Forward:

• Create a clear, consultative code of conduct for digital influencers.
• Encourage self-regulation with accountability, like OTT platforms' grievance mechanisms.
• Promote media literacy and sensitisation around disability, gender, age, and minority rights.
• Define proportional penalties for violations.

Conclusion:
The Court’s intervention marks a significant moment in digital jurisprudence. The challenge lies in ensuring that free speech thrives, but not at the cost of others’ dignity and inclusion—a fundamental principle of the Constitution.