Create framework for responsible social media use: SC to Centre

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, allowing citizens to freely express their ideas and opinions. But soon comes Article 19(2) which reminds that the freedom is not absolute. It permits the government to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, state security, public order, decency, morality, and other concerns to maintain balance and protect public interest.
Over the past two days, the Supreme Court (SC) heard three cases related to freedom of expression. The circumstances in the three and the redress sought were different, but the SC had one common message.
Five social media influencers, including ‘India’s Got Latent’ host Samay Raina, on Tuesday appeared before the Supreme Court in a case seeking action against them for ridiculing persons suffering from disabilities. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi recorded the presence of the social media influencers and asked them to file their replies to the petition.
The top court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines by keeping a balance of freedom of speech and expression and rights and duties of others. It said that the freedom of one person should not violate the rights of others and flagged that enforceability of these guidelines is the most difficult part.
Venkataramani sought time to assist the court on the issue and said the enforceability of guidelines would require detailed consideration. “What we are doing is for posterity. You have to ensure that not a single word is misused by anyone. You have to ensure balance. We have to protect citizens’ rights. A framework must be there that the dignity of anyone is not violated,” the bench said.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by M/s Cure SMA Foundation seeking a prohibition on the broadcast of derogatory and denigrating content on the digital media against persons with disability. The SC asked the influencers to appear again in-person on the next date of the hearing of the case.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim protection from arrest to Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who is accused of uploading “objectionable” cartoons of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and workers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on social media. While granting the cartoonist protection, the court remarked that it was not okay to make any statement against anyone. Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the cartoonist, said, “The person can have a critical opinion about things, it does not constitute an offence…”
In response, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj remarked, “The manner in which he has done, is clearly an offence.” Justice Dhulia said one of the posts by the cartoonist is “very, very offensive”. “What is happening today, all kinds of statements are being made. The language they use. There are some among the lawyer community also doing this. We will have to do something on this,” Justice Dhulia remarked.
Denying his request on Monday, the bench had said, “This freedom of speech is being abused by this cartoonist, stand-up comedians.”
While hearing a case related to Wajahat Khan, the 30-year-old co-founder of the Rashidi Foundation, the court on Monday said that there is freedom of speech, but this does not mean that anyone can say anything. “Every person should learn to control his tongue and his words, especially on social media.”
Khan had filed a complaint against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli over alleged defamatory social media posts. However, as his own old tweets surfaced, cases were filed against him in many states. Khan moved the SC, asking the cases to be clubbed.
Khan’s lawyer said that the tweets he made were just a reaction, but the court clearly asked, “Why did you repeat the same mistake?”
The court was told that he had made objectionable comments about those who worship Kamakhya Devi.
The court expressed displeasure over this and said that responsibility is necessary before posting anything on social media. “At times, people think they have the freedom to say anything on social media, but when it is misused, the matter reaches the court. This increases the pressure on the courts. The police also loses focus from the real cases. If people do not control their words, then the government will have to intervene. Nobody wants the government to keep interrupting every time. If mutual brotherhood and understanding remains in the society, then such hateful talks will reduce.”
The court gave relief to Khan and has sought a response from the state government, but made it clear that this matter is not limited to just one person, but it is a big issue related to the responsibility of all citizens and the right use of social media.