The court was hearing a case against social media comedians for “abusing freedom of speech and expression” by making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities.
Key Judicial Observations
- Commercial & Prohibited Speech Not Protected: Freedom of speech (Art. 19(1)(a)) does not cover commercial speech or prohibited speech.
- Hate speech/Prohibited speech: Expressions that promote or incite enmity, hatred, or violence against a group based on inherent characteristics such as religion, race, caste, or ethnicity.
- Commercial speech: Advertising and related forms of speech with economic intent.
- Accountability of Influencers: Influencers with a large following must act responsibly.
- Penal Action & Compensation: Suggested proportionate punitive measures under IT Rules and Cinematograph Act.
- Social Media Guidelines: Court asked government to draft comprehensive guidelines for regulating online content.
SC Judgement related to free speech
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020): It differentiated between free speech and hate/prohibited speech and emphasised the responsibility of influencers with wide reach.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): SC held that legitimate online expression cannot be curtailed in the absence of imminent harm.
Legal Framework for Online Content Regulation in India
|
