The Supreme Court of India recently expressed concern over the misuse of free speech by social media influencers, especially its impact on vulnerable groups. 

• It directed the government to frame social media guidelines in consultation with the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA).

Background of the Case

• Petitioners: Spinal Muscular Atrophy Cure Foundation against top comedians and social media influencers.
• Issue: Derogatory remarks about persons with disabilities, including mocking the treatment costs of Spinal Muscular Atrophy, violating dignity and inclusivity.

About Supreme Court Ruling on Social Media Conduct

• Key Observations of the Bench:
  • Commercialisation of Free Speech: When speech is monetised, the responsibility of the speaker increases; influencers cannot profit while harming vulnerable groups.
  • Limits of Humour: Humour was an irreplaceable part of life, but levity must not breach sensibilities.
  • Mainstreaming Persons with Disabilities: Remarks against persons with disabilities undermine the constitutional objective of inclusivity and equality.
  • Proportionate Penalties: Token or symbolic apologies are insufficient; effective and enforceable sanctions are required.
  • Comprehensive Guidelines Needed: Rules must be broad in scope, covering emerging platforms such as podcasts and online comedy shows.
• Court’s Directives:
  • Apologies by Comedians: Ordered to publicly apologise on their social media platforms and use their influence to spread awareness on disability rights.
  • Framing of Guidelines: Directed the Union Government, in consultation with the News Broadcasters and Digital Association and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, to draft social media conduct rules.
  • Timeline: Draft guidelines will be ready by November; they should be future-oriented and comprehensive, not just quick reactions to isolated incidents.
• Wider Ethical and Social Implications:
  • Influencers as Ambassadors: Social media influencers act as opinion-shapers and must exercise moral responsibility.
  • Platform Accountability: Regulation must extend beyond individuals to digital platforms such as YouTube, podcasts, and online shows.
  • Balancing Rights: Freedom of Expression under Article 19 must align with the Right to Dignity under Article 21.
  • Blurred Boundaries: Social media blurs lines between free speech, commercial speech, and prohibited speech, necessitating regulation.
• Significance of the Ruling:
  • Digital Accountability: Establishes a national precedent for digital responsibility.
  • Push for Digital Ethics Framework: Encourages formal ethical conduct in digital space.
  • Institutionalised Consultation: Involving the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the News Broadcasters and Digital Association ensures legitimacy and broad acceptance.
  • Protection of Marginalised Communities: Reinforces constitutional values by safeguarding the dignity of persons with disabilities, women, children, minorities, and senior citizens.

About Social Media

• Social media refers to digital platforms and applications that allow people to create, share, and exchange information, ideas, and content in real-time.
• Examples: Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Telegram.
• Key Features:
  • Interactivity: Users engage in two-way communication.
  • User-generated content: Content created by individuals, not just institutions.
  • Networking: Enables building of personal, professional, and interest-based communities.
  • Viral reach: Information spreads quickly across diverse audiences.
• Dual Nature of Social Media: Social media is a double-edged tool that can either empower democracy or undermine social harmony depending on the manner of its regulation and use.
• Positive Role of Social Media: Social media enables connectivity, democratic participation, activism, and economic opportunities, making it a powerful tool for modern societies.
• Challenges Associated with Social Media: Social media has also been misused for spreading fake news, misinformation, trolling, hate speech, and reinforcing stereotypes, often leading to polarisation.
• Key Stakeholders and their Interests:
  • Citizens and Users: Seek safe online spaces, privacy, dignity, and responsible expression.
  • Social Media Platforms: Aim for profitability, growth, and compliance while maintaining user trust.
  • Political Parties: Use social media for campaigning and voter outreach.
  • Government and Regulators: Ensure rights protection, national security, and fair competition in digital markets.
  • International Organisations: Promote global consensus on the ethical use of digital platforms.
• Legal Framework for Social Media in India:
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: The Act empowers the government to block objectionable content under Section 69A and defines intermediary liability under Section 79.
  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for violating free speech and clarified limits on intermediary liability.
  • Information Technology Rules, 2021: These rules mandate the appointment of grievance officers, compliance officers, and establish a Code of Ethics with government oversight mechanisms.
  • Recent High Court Rulings: The Bombay High Court in the Kunal Kamra case curtailed excessive government powers in fact-checking online content, safeguarding against arbitrary curbs on free speech.
  • Broadcasting Content Standards (NBSA): Issues self-regulatory guidelines for news broadcasters.
  • Indian Penal Code (IPC), Information Technology Act & Disability Rights Laws: Provide limited safeguards against offensive, discriminatory, or harmful online content.

Need for Rule-Making and Guidelines

• Closing Accountability Gaps: The current framework does not adequately regulate influencer content and leaves accountability gaps.
• Safeguarding Vulnerable Communities: Guidelines must prioritise protection for persons with disabilities, women, children, and minorities to prevent stereotyping and ridicule.
• Countering Emerging Threats: New challenges such as fake news, deepfakes, and artificial intelligence–generated misinformation necessitate proactive rule-making.
• Clear Penalties for Violations: Sanctions must be defined clearly and proportionately to deter misconduct while preserving legitimate free expression.
• Constitutional and Ethical Dimensions:
  • Constitutional Provisions:
    • Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right.
    • Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of morality, decency, and public order.
    • Article 21: Protects the right to life with dignity, privacy, and inclusivity, which are undermined by offensive online content.
  • Ethical Duties in Digital Spaces: Rights must be balanced with fairness, empathy, responsibility, and inclusivity in public and online life.

Principles for Ethical Social Media

• Due Diligence: All content must be verified and fact-checked before dissemination.
• Confidentiality: User data must be protected with informed consent for usage and sharing.
• Empathy and Tolerance: Respect for diverse views reduces polarisation and promotes inclusivity.
• Responsibility: Users and influencers must uphold fairness, justice, and inclusivity.
• Critical Thinking: Citizens must apply judgment to resist misinformation and herd mentality.

Challenges in Regulating Social Media

• Jurisdictional Issues: The global nature of platforms makes it difficult for a single country’s laws to control them effectively. Further, the issue of data localisation creates friction, as companies often resist storing user data in India, citing operational and privacy concerns.
• Free Speech vs Regulation: While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of expression, Article 19(2) permits only “reasonable restrictions,” which remain contested. The thin line between legitimate criticism, satire, and harmful speech is highly subjective and vulnerable to misuse.
• Privacy and Data Protection: Social media companies engage in excessive data collection and monetisation through targeted advertising. Weak consent mechanisms mean most users remain unaware of how their data is stored or shared. 
  • India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, though significant, is still evolving in implementation.
• Fake News and Misinformation: False information achieves rapid virality, often outpacing official clarifications. The anonymity of users complicates source tracing, while the societal impact is severe, ranging from communal violence to vaccine hesitancy and political polarisation.
• Algorithmic Bias and Echo Chambers: By pushing personalised feeds, algorithms reinforce existing biases and create filter bubbles, leading to deeper societal divides. These black-box algorithms lack transparency, making accountability difficult.
  • A filter bubble is a situation where a user is exposed only to information, ideas, or opinions that reinforce their existing beliefs, while alternative viewpoints are systematically filtered out. This happens due to algorithmic personalisation on social media platforms.
• National Security Threats: Social media is exploited for cross-border propaganda, terror recruitment, and disinformation campaigns. It is also a tool for cybercrimes such as financial fraud and trafficking. 
  • While end-to-end encryption protects privacy, it poses a serious challenge to lawful surveillance and accountability.
• Regulatory Capacity Gaps: The sheer volume of content posted daily makes real-time monitoring nearly impossible. Moreover, government agencies often lack the technological expertise of private platforms. 
  • As a result, enforcement tends to be reactive and incident-driven rather than preventive.
• Corporate Resistance: The profit-driven nature of platforms encourages sensational or harmful content, since it boosts engagement. 
  • Additionally, Big Tech lobbying power often resists stricter regulations through litigation and international pressure.
• Ethical Concerns: The commercialisation of speech by influencers prioritises profit over responsibility. Marginalised groups—including women, children, minorities, and persons with disabilities remain particularly vulnerable to online abuse. 
  • An accountability vacuum exists, as liability is blurred between the platform, the content creator, and the user.
• Legal and Institutional Gaps: India’s regulatory regime is fragmented, spread across the IT Act, 2000, IT Rules, 2021, and judicial rulings. Weak enforcement and absence of clear penalties further undermine effectiveness. On the other hand, excessive regulation risks state overreach, censorship, and chilling effects on free speech.

Key Ethical Dilemmas

• Privacy vs Profit: Platforms monetise user data without informed consent.
• Free Speech vs Harm: Satire and humour risk turning into offensive, harmful speech.
• National Security vs Freedom of Expression: Security needs often clash with free speech protections.
• Encryption vs Accountability: Encryption protects privacy but limits crime-tracing ability.
• Polarisation of Society: Algorithms create echo chambers and filter bubbles, fuelling social divides.

Way Forward

• Consultative Rule-Making: Guidelines must be drafted in consultation with the News Broadcasters and Digital Association, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, civil society, and content creators.
• Independent Oversight Body: A Digital Ethics Commission should be created to enforce compliance, redress grievances, and monitor content.
• Proportionate and Enforceable Penalties: Penalties should include public apologies, fines, and suspension of monetisation for repeat violators.
• Nationwide Awareness Campaigns: Government and platforms must promote inclusivity and digital responsibility through sensitisation drives.
• Periodic Review of Rules: Guidelines should be updated to deal with deepfakes, artificial intelligence, and new threats.
• Codes of Ethics for Parties and Platforms: Political parties and platforms must adopt internal ethical codes to regulate their conduct.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s directive reflects the essence of constitutional morality. Freedom of expression under Article 19 must harmonise with the right to dignity under Article 21. Ethical regulation of social media is vital to protect vulnerable communities, preserve inclusivity, and strengthen digital democracy in India.

DOWNLOAD PDF