In India freedom of expression and freedom of speech is guaranteed to all the citizens as being classified under fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. However, the Constitution of India also provides for reasonable restrictions against free speech in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. However, as we have noticed many times the laws pertaining to speech have often been misused to victimize artists, journalists, and social activists by certain forces of the society, on the pretext of causing communal disharmony and also there may be few politicians/artists/journalists/social activists who openly try to create disharmony through their speech in the society urging people to disrespect the very symbols of the country or at times to create violent protests against certain law of the State even when they are aware that the Constitution of India provides an alternative to challenge the decision of Parliament by approaching the Court of law, but such people have not been arrested or tried under the prevailing hate speech laws or even if they are arrested they are bailed out easily.

The Press Council of India Act, 1978, is the regulating body that ensures that the press functions in a tasteful manner, in accordance with journalistic standards. Television news, on the other hand, is regulated by the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 which governs the code of conduct of the operation of cable television networks in India. This code also prohibits the broadcast of news that violates decency or attacks community or religious sentiments. There have been multiple other instances where the debate was between hate speech versus the right to free speech and where does one draw the line as the rules in respect of the same differ. A few months ago one influencer of a well-known digital platform had uploaded a video wherein he did roast influencer of some other digital platform, however, a few days later the video was deleted from the digital platform claiming that the content promoted hate towards a certain group of people[1] which is against their guidelines/policies but on the other hand many other influencers came in support of the influencer whose video had been deleted of which few have claimed that there are several videos on the same digital platform which openly target such groups and try to spread hate against those groups. Also, there are videos of so many stand up comedians who have tried to spread hate or create discrimination among people in the society in the name of comedy/free speech especially taking selective issues and targeting a particular ancient culture which may be still available on the same digital platform. But the digital platform has not deleted such videos. Hence the rules/policies of such social media platforms are unclear. Social media’s reach is much wider than that of traditional media.

Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India goes hand-in-hand with reasonable restrictions that may be imposed under Article 19(2). India has seen plenty of communal violence in the past, but in today’s time of social media, these aggressions are not just restricted to the regional or local population, the entire country is taken along. The fog of rumors, innuendo, and hate that act as kindling in a local communal clash immediately spread across India through social media.

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal and Ors. vs Union of India[2], struck down Section 66A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 considering that it was vague and unconstitutional as it barred freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution of India, however, the fact that Section 66A was brought into effect because the social media culture necessitated it since then right to free speech was wrongly considered to undermine the rights and dignity of others and hence the provision was rightfully declared unconstitutional and was dismissed. However, the fact cannot be undermined that certain regulatory body is required to ensure one’s safety in the online forum in the current scenario considering the use of unrestricted freedom of speech by certain individuals who have time and again used social media platforms in bad taste.

Recently a stand-up comedian has passed certain undesired comments on the judicial body of this country in view of the certain decisions passed by the judicial body for which legal action was initiated against him.[3] Also, various other hate comments /speeches get expressed vide these social media platforms and that too many times the language in which they are expressed may not be a decent language.

In certain cases, the group of teenagers who may not be completely aware of the menace caused by misuse or unethical use of social media groups may post something on such platforms without realizing consequences of the same towards someone else or their own selves which did happen on an online platform owing to which an innocent teenage boy lost his life a few months ago[4] and later the incident was brought to light wherein the entire post was fake.[5]

At times the social media platforms do delete such accounts which may create menace but these platforms do not have specific criteria and have many a time also deleted accounts of such personalities who have tried to question the wrong or distasteful comments of even the wrongdoers in the society. Such social media platforms project themselves as a micro-blogging system but at times allow people to run campaigns unconcerned with the law of the land and evade their responsibility of managing and regulating its content.

Recently various appeals have been filed before the Courts for regulating social media such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, etc.[6] In mid-December 2020 the Supreme Court granted liberty to an Advocate to approach High Court on his plea seeking a mechanism for regulation of content circulation social media platform named Twitter seeking directions for framing of appropriate regulations towards operations and content circulation activities of Twitter Inc and Twitter Communications India to control digitized expressions so that they do not violate the law of the country. The plea sought directions for setting up a regulatory and grievance redressal authority for content circulation on Twitter prescribing appropriate penalties in event of non-compliance or violation also seeking interim directions to appoint a committee headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court to regulate the affairs of Twitter.[7]

To conclude there are certain issues that occur because of unrestricted use of social media by certain users which may cause disruption in the society at large or may put the prestige of certain organizations in a bad light and therefore the role of governance or regulatory body may be required to prevent unrestricted use of social media platforms.

-Vaidehi Harshad Samant

Advocate, Mumbai

References

[1] https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/others/why-was-carryminati-video-deleted.html

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/ 

[3] https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/kunal-kamra-tweets-contempt-of-court-supreme-court-notice-167383

[4] https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/bois-locker-room-case-a-suspected-member-commits-suicide-parents-seek-probe  

[5] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/sidharth-is-actually-a-girl-fake-account-used-to-suggest-plan-for-sexual-assault/articleshow/75667020.cms 

[6] https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/plea-in-supreme-court-seeks-centre-to-hold-facebook-twitter-whatsapp-responsible-for-spreading-hate-speech

[7] https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/supreme-court-allows-petitioner-to-move-high-court-on-plea-seeking-regulation-of-content-on-twitter/