{"id":61395,"date":"2025-08-31T12:21:03","date_gmt":"2025-08-31T06:51:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=61395"},"modified":"2025-09-02T13:46:02","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T08:16:02","slug":"social-media-regulation-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/social-media-regulation-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court\u2019s Social Media Regulation Order: Free Speech and Accountability"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Social Media Latest News<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to frame guidelines for regulating social media, stressing that free speech cannot be misused for commercial gain at the cost of public dignity.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India directed the Union government to draft comprehensive guidelines for regulating social media content.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The order comes amid growing concerns over the misuse of free speech by influencers and digital creators for commercial gain, often at the cost of public sentiment and individual dignity.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The directive marks a significant step in balancing constitutional freedoms with accountability in the digital age.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The Supreme Court\u2019s Directive<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A two-judge bench stressed that while free speech is a constitutional right under <\/span><b>Article 19(1)(a)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, it cannot be used purely for commercial purposes in a manner that offends vulnerable groups.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case originated from a petition filed by a non-profit supporting individuals with <\/span><b>Spinal Muscular Atrophy<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (SMA), who alleged derogatory remarks made by comedians had violated their dignity.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The court ordered the Centre to frame regulations in consultation with the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/news-broadcasting-digital-standards-authority-nbdsa\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>National Broadcasters and Digital Association<\/b><\/a><b> (NBDA)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and also directed the comedians involved to issue public apologies on their social media platforms.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitutional Framework on Free Speech<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Constitution permits restrictions on free speech under <\/span><b>Article 19(2)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> on limited grounds, including:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sovereignty and integrity of India<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Security of the State<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Friendly relations with foreign states<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Public order<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Decency and morality<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Contempt of court<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Defamation<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Incitement to offences<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that restrictions cannot extend beyond these grounds.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In <\/span><b><i>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India<\/i><\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (2015)<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, the <\/span><b>Court struck down <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/section-66a-of-the-it-act\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Section 66A<\/b><\/a><b> of the IT Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> for criminalising vague expressions like \u201cannoyance\u201d or \u201chatred,\u201d affirming that even speech that \u201coffends, shocks, or disturbs\u201d remains constitutionally protected.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The Debate on Commercial Speech<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The regulation of commercial speech has had an evolving jurisprudence in India:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In <\/span><b><i>Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India<\/i><\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1959)<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, the Court held that advertisements tied to trade and commerce do not qualify as free speech.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, in <\/span><b><i>Tata Press v. MTNL<\/i><\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1995)<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, the Court recognised commercial speech as constitutionally protected, since advertisements serve public interest by disseminating information.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Later judgments, such as <\/span><b><i>A. Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/i><\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1997)<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, reiterated the need to balance commercial expression with societal interests.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This evolution demonstrates the Court\u2019s nuanced approach to distinguishing between public-interest commercial expression and purely profit-driven content.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Existing Legal Framework for Digital Media<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Social media companies in India are already governed by the <\/span><b>IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> under the IT Act, 2000.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">These rules require platforms to restrict obscene, pornographic, or harmful content.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Influencers and online creators are also subject to criminal law if their speech amounts to defamation, incitement, or other recognised offences.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Experts caution that any additional guidelines must be carefully drafted to avoid infringing upon free speech, given the Supreme Court\u2019s strong history of protecting this right.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Broader Implications<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court\u2019s intervention raises critical questions about the future of free speech in the digital age.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">With nearly <\/span><b>491 million Indians active on social media<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, the regulation of online platforms is no longer just a legal issue but also a societal necessity.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">While the move is aimed at curbing abusive or derogatory content disguised as entertainment or marketing, it also places the responsibility on the government to ensure that regulation does not become a tool of censorship.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court\u2019s \u201cpolyvocality\u201d in free speech jurisprudence, arising from differing judicial interpretations, has resulted in inconsistencies.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This ruling, therefore, may provide an opportunity to consolidate principles of accountability without diluting constitutional protections.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source :<\/b> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/sc-directs-samay-raina-others-to-display-apology-on-their-podcast-over-ridiculing-differently-abled\/article69974275.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">TH<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to frame guidelines for regulating social media to prevent misuse of free speech.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":61580,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[60,2420,22,59],"class_list":{"0":"post-61395","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"tag-mains-articles","9":"tag-social-media","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=61395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61395\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/61580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}