If There Is Fraternity Among Citizens, Hatred Will Come Down; Divisive Social Media Tendencies Must Be Curbed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) orally remarked that greater fraternity among citizens would reduce hatred and stressed the need for self-restraint in the exercise of freedom of speech, especially on social media.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Kolkata-resident Wazahat Khan seeking the consolidation of the FIRs registered in different states over his offensive social media posts.

Expressing concerns about instances of social media posts creating disharmony, Justice BV Nagarathna said, “My learned brother rightly said that there should be fraternity between the citizens then all this hatred will come down.”

The FIRs against Khan in Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana were registered soon after his complaint led to the arrest of social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli over her social media posts. 

The Court stressed the need for citizen self-regulation and restraint, saying that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right but is increasingly being abused.

Justice Nagarathna said, “If they (citizens) want to enjoy the fundamental right of speech and expression, it should be with the reasonable restrictions also. Apart from that, there must be self-restraint and regulation also, to enjoy the valuable freedom, not like this abuse. Article 19 is against the state, what you call it – verticality. What about horizontality?”

She said citizens should understand the value of this right and use it responsibly, warning that if they failed to do so, state intervention would become inevitable, something no one wanted.

“One of the fundamental duties is to uphold the unity and integrity of the country India. So that is being violated. See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed. But to what extent the state can curb? Instead, why can't the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don't then the state will step in and who wants the state to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in”, she remarked.

She added. “We will ask learned senior counsel for the petitioner to assist and also you the state to assist vis-à-vis the guidelines to be issued to the citizens to comply.”

During the hearing, Khan's counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, accepted that there was no justification for the content of the tweets. The tweets, he said, were old and posted as a reaction to other content, and the petitioner had already issued a public apology and deleted them. He stated that the petitioner had made the same mistake that he had earlier accused others of and expressed regret for not exercising restraint.

Justice Nagarathna observed that such matters were clogging the legal system and questioned why citizens could not exercise self-restraint, especially in the use of social media platforms. She said that the abuse of freedom of speech was leading to unnecessary litigation and overburdening law enforcement.

“This is happening in the country. There is no restraint freedom of speech and expression is a very very important freedom and a fundamental right. If there is abuse of that freedom leading to litigation and clogging of courts...There are also other criminal cases the police can attend to instead of chasing these kind of cases. What is the solution to this? We are not from the point of view of state, we are asking from the point of view of citizens.”

Justice Nagarathna noted that once content is posted online, it remains accessible even if taken down later. She said that expressing opinion in an particular manner could amount to abuse. “Having an opinion is one thing but to say that in a particular way is an abuse. Sometimes it will not come in the court in the context of hate speech. My learned brother rightly said that there should be fraternity between the citizens then all this hate will come down.”

She also remarked that the freedom of expression is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, but citizens are abusing this freedom.  

Justice Nagarathna opined that the issue was not only about the petitioner and that the matter would require wider consideration. “We are not speaking about censorship. But in the interest of fraternity, secularism and dignity of individuals...We will have to go into this beyond this petition”, she said.

Justice Viswanathan observed that unless citizens themselves stop engaging with such content online, it would be difficult to bring about change. He asked, “When citizens react to this by not following. If less and less people follow these kind of tweets, how do you create this awareness?”

The counsel responded, “Essentially starting a social movement in the context of identification of hate or other kinds of egregious speech and then doing that social boycott at the very beginning. The oxygen of such speech is that people react.”

Justice Viswanathan said, “Easier said than done. When will people start to find it jarring? All right-minded people. All citizens.”

The State's counsel said, “It all boils down to awareness. It has already become jarring but people have to realise. That self-reflection has to come.” He said that self-regulation was difficult in such cases, particularly because social media platforms allow users to publish content without any editorial oversight, unlike traditional media.

Justice Nagarathna pointed out the concept of “content of speech” in the United States. Broadly, it refers to the idea that certain expressions can be regulated or restricted based on what is being said, i.e., the content of the speech, rather than the manner, time etc. She requested the parties to assist the court in examining the broader questions arising in the matter.

The matter will be heard again after four weeks. The court continued the interim protection granted to Khan against arrest in FIRs registered outside West Bengal until then.

Background

The bench had on June 23 issued notice on Khan's writ petition and granted him interim protection from arrest in connection with FIRs registered outside West Bengal. At that stage, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for Khan, had submitted that the FIRs were filed in retaliation to Khan's earlier complaint against Panoli. He had stated that Khan had apologised for his posts and deleted them even before the FIRs were lodged.

Khan, who is reportedly a co-founder of the Kolkata-based Rashidi Foundation, had lodged the complaint against Panoli that led to her arrest by the Kolkata Police from Gurugram. She was later granted interim bail by the Calcutta High Court.

Following Panoli's arrest, Khan himself was booked by the Kolkata Police under Sections 196(1)(a), 299, 352, and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He was arrested on June 9 in connection with two FIRs registered in West Bengal. The allegations against him pertain to making offensive remarks against Hindu deities and festivals and spreading hatred through social media, with complaints claiming that his posts could incite communal tensions.

Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 247/2025

Case Title – Wazahat Khan v. Union of India and Ors.,