Frame Guidelines To Regulate Social Media

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• The Supreme Court urged the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media, noting that influencers often commercialise free speech in ways that may offend the sentiments of vulnerable groups.
• SC directed that these regulations be drafted in consultation with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association. 

Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

• Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution deals with the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). 
• Conditions under which speech can be restricted by the state:
  • Security of the State, Public Order, Decency or Morality, Contempt of Court, Defamation, Incitement to Offense.
• Right to Take Offense: Article 19(2) of the Constitution does not recognise offensive speech as a distinct category.
  • Therefore, the notion of a right to take offence lies beyond the ambit of constitutionally permissible limitations.
• Constitutional Morality: It’s a nuanced, evolving concept, not an inherent sentiment.
  • Must be cultivated and developed over time.
  • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar believed the legislature, not the Constitution, should decide forms of administration.

Need for Regulating Digital/Commercial Speech

• Protecting vulnerable groups: Derogatory remarks against persons with disabilities, minorities, or women perpetuate stigma.
  • Regulations can ensure inclusivity and dignity in public discourse.
• Accountability of influencers: Influencers and comedians earn from monetised platforms. Their speech is not purely private; it is a public service with commercial stakes.
  • Guidelines can create responsibility proportional to reach and influence.
• Preventing harm and disorder: Fake news, hate speech, and derogatory jokes can trigger violence or social unrest, reasonable limits may prevent escalation.
• Aligning with global trends: EU’s Digital Services Act and UK’s Online Safety Act already regulate harmful online content.
  • India cannot remain unregulated when speech directly affects millions of internet users.

Concerns

• Existing laws already cover misconduct: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), IT Act (2000), and IPC provisions already provide remedies.
• Risk of overreach and chilling effect: Vague terms like “dignity” or “decency” may be misused to silence satire, art, or political criticism.
  • Fear of prosecution may push comedians, journalists, and influencers towards self-censorship.
• Contradicts Global Free Speech Norms: Democracies like the US adopt the “marketplace of ideas” model, protecting even offensive speech unless it incites violence.
  • Over-regulation in India risks isolating its digital creators and undermining global competitiveness in creative industries.
• Threat to Democratic Culture: Excessive regulation weakens democracy’s ability to tolerate dissent and discomfort.

Way Ahead

• The focus of laws can be directed only on hate speech, incitement to violence, and deliberate misinformation.
• A transparent and independent oversight body can review the content takedown cases.
• Industry codes of conduct and content rating systems can become the first line of control.

Conclusion

• Free speech in India has always been limited, not absolute—shaped by constitutional norms and social sensitivities. 
• The digital era intensifies these tensions making the speech instant, global, and monetised.
• While protecting dignity and preventing harm are legitimate aims, over-regulation risks suppressing creativity, satire, and political criticism. 
• The challenge is to strike a balance: regulations must be transparent, proportionate, and participatory—protecting both vulnerable groups and the constitutional promise of free expression.

Source: TH