Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Union government to create new guidelines with the purpose of resolving issues surrounding conduct on social media and publishing in response to increasing concerns regarding content by influencers and content creators that could be considered offensive or insensitive. The Court further suggested that it would attempt to reconcile the right to free speech with the need to provide safeguards against harm to vulnerable segments of society, in light of current conditions and an evolving digital landscape.
Background
The issue of the regulation of conduct on social media has become a prominent policy issue around the world. The realisation of social media has affected the way individuals use their freedom of speech, especially influencers and comedians, and in particular those individuals who have monetized their speech and made that speech widely available to a public audience. The current proceedings were the result of complaints about comics such as Samay Raina, who were said to have made insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities, which exposed the lack of clarity over how to draw the line between what is protected expression from harmful speech, and in this case, expression that is provided for commercial consideration and disseminated quickly through podcasts and social networking sites.
A Bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the witnesses from the complaints, witnesses who were represented by the SMA Cure Foundation, and representatives from industry groups such as the National Broadcasters and Digital Association.
The case highlighted the tension between freedom of expression and the dignity of societal groups that might be more vulnerable to online abuse or ridicule, for example, the disabled, women, children, and minorities.
Key Points
- Profit and Social Responsibility: The Supreme Court observed that influencers and content creators are not simply private citizens, but by commercializing free expression, have enriched responsibility under the words that impact society. The Court cautioned that by making comments or jokes for profit, the public might not just reinforce stereotypes, but can have psychological and reputational harm on marginalized communities.
- Categories of Speech Defined: Justice Bagchi observed the murky line between free, commercial, and prohibited speech in online engagement. The Bench referred to the rules of law regarding public decorum when acknowledging the contribution that humor plays in society, as long as humor does not come at the expense of societal decency or engage with constitutional goals, especially those that relate to social inclusion.
- Need for Considered Guidelines: The Court called for some regulatory guidelines to be developed in consultation with the appropriate digital and broadcast associations to ensure that online interaction is respectful. The Court emphasized that the guidelines must not only have real consequences that are proportionate to the violation, and not hypothetical options that violators can circumvent.
- Sensitization and Enforcement: The Attorney General pointed out that the end goal of the proposed norms should be to sensitize digital content creators and their audiences. Nevertheless, accountability matters, and appropriate action must be taken promptly against those acting illegally in a way that reflects the violation.
Recent Developments
Following the Supreme Court’s position, the comedians in question have removed the episodes criticized and have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the applicable investigations. The Supreme Court issued interim orders, requiring the identified influencers to provide unconditional public apologies to be stated publicly through their online shows. The union government would commence discussions with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association, on preparing a draft of the guidelines for regulatory oversight. The subject is scheduled to be heard again in November 2025 with the government and other parties to report on compliance and performance.
Conclusion
Not only does the Supreme Court’s order represent a significant moment in the regulation of India’s online space, but it also demonstrates the need for more specific guidance on the standard of conduct online. The Court’s order symbolizes an even-handed approach prioritizing new guidelines on accountability while ensuring the fundamental right to free expression and the dignity and rights of the vulnerable. As the government wrestles with how to define norms of digital conduct and the courts attempt to enforce it, it is likely the case will be cited on the role of responsible online conduct in India’s pluralistic and changing sociocultural context.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY __ Kondala Phani Priya
