IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

27 Aug 2025 : Imagined righteousness

  Editorial 1: Imagined righteousness

Context

Protecting citizens’ rights should be the courts’ priority, not empowering the state without limits.

 

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s push for guidelines to regulate social media speech highlights a tension between freedom of expression and state control. While aiming to curb derogatory or harmful content, such judicial encouragement risks empowering an executive already prone to weaponising regulations, potentially undermining constitutional rights and fostering a climate of censorship that stifles democracy, creativity, and open discourse.

 

Supreme Court and Social Media Regulation

  • The Supreme Court of India has urged the Union government to draft guidelines for regulating speech on social media.
  • This move aims to empower an executive that is already actively using legal limits on freedom of expression to its advantage.
  • The Court’s instructions came in response to a petition by a non-profit challenging derogatory online remarkstargeting disabled persons.
  • Such judicial interventions risk encouraging the state to extend statutory restrictions into legally grey areas, potentially undermining constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 

Risks of Policing Speech

  • Treating offensive or distasteful humor as a problem to be solved by courts or executive rulemaking is misleading and potentially harmful.
  • Expanding powers to police speech carries inherent risks:
    • Partisan authorities may monitor and suppress art, political speech, or dissent they dislike.
    • Citizens may self-censor, constantly checking what they can safely express.
  • A climate of censored expression stifles essential truths and ideas crucial for a functioning democracy.
  • Creative professionals—filmmakers, directors, and journalists—face legal and regulatory pressures that limit their work and social progress.

 

Government Overreach and Legal Concerns

  • The Union government has increasingly expanded control over online speech through:
    • The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
    • Amendments allowing social media platforms to be held accountable for flagged user content.
  • Recent Supreme Court instructions (August 25, 2025) could further extend these powers.
  • Hate speech and incitement to violence against minorities are already criminalized, offering legal recourse for legitimate grievances.
  • Giving an executive with a history of weaponizing speech and media regulations even more power is highly risky.

 

Role of the Judiciary

  • Judicial pronouncements citing “misuse of freedom of speech” as a justification may misunderstand the Court’s institutional role.
  • The judiciary’s duty is to protect rights under a clear constitutional framework, not act as an unchecked authority.
  • Empowering the state excessively under the guise of regulating speech risks undermining the balance of rights and liberties that define a democracy.

 

Conclusion

Judicial and executive overreach in policing online speech threatens the core principles of democracy. Protecting freedom of expression while addressing legitimate grievances is crucial. Excessive control can suppress dissent, art, and journalism, eroding social progress. The judiciary must act as a guardian of rights, not an unchecked authority, ensuring a balanced framework for a free and open society.