Three Different Benches Of Supreme Court Raise Concerns Over Citizens Misusing Freedom Of Speech

In the span of the last two days, three benches of the Supreme Court expressed concern over increasing misuse of the right to freedom of speech and expression, while dealing with separate matters involving offensive social media posts, comedy content targeting persons with disabilities, and allegedly derogatory cartoons.

The judges' remarks observations touched upon the need for self-restraint by citizens, protection of individual dignity, and a possible regulatory framework for online content.

Citizens Must Exercise Self-Restraint in Using Free Speech

On July 14, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan, while hearing a plea filed by Kolkata-based Wazahat Khan for consolidation of FIRs lodged in multiple states over his social media posts, observed that citizens were increasingly abusing the right to free speech and expression.

Justice Nagarathna observed that such matters were clogging the legal system, and emphasised that the citizens must exercise self-restraint on social media so that the state machinery does not have to step in.

The Court highlighted the need for greater fraternity among citizens and emphasised that the freedom under Article 19 must be exercised with reasonable restrictions and internal regulation. It indicated the need for guidelines to be issued for citizens, and requested both the petitioner's counsel and the State to assist the Court in formulating such guidelines.

Justice Nagarathna said that while the right was guaranteed against the state, citizens must also recognise their duty to exercise this freedom responsibly. She said that divisive tendencies on social media must be curbed, and if citizens failed to self-regulate, state intervention would become inevitable. “One of the fundamental duties is to uphold the unity and integrity of the country... 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?” she remarked.

Justice Nagarathna said the issue was not limited to the petitioner and required broader consideration “in the interest of fraternity, secularism and dignity of individuals.”

Justice Viswanathan said the solution would come only when citizens stopped engaging with such content. He questioned how awareness could be created to ensure that people begin to view such speech as unacceptable.

The Court continued the interim protection granted to Khan against arrest in FIRs registered outside West Bengal and listed the matter after four weeks.

Court Seeks Views on Content Regulation in Case Involving Allegedly Offensive Comedy

On July 15, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard three petitions, two filed by YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani for clubbing of FIRs, and one filed by SMA Cure Foundation against comedians Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar over allegedly insensitive jokes targeting persons with disabilities.

The bench reiterated that the issue raised was serious, as it involved the dignity of persons with disabilities. While granting the respondents two weeks to file counter-affidavits, the Court directed all of them, except Thakkar, to continue appearing in person.

Earlier hearings witnessed the bench severely berate Allahabadia for his"dirty, perverted" remarks and express an intention to do something to regulate obscene content on YouTube and other social media. In this regard, it even asked the Union Government about its views.

Today, Justice Kant observed that any such guidelines must align with constitutional principles and reflect both freedom and responsibility. He said the Court was open to suggestions on guidelines from all stakeholders, including the Bar, and wanted to “test” a framework that balanced freedom and duty. He emphasised that Article 19 (freedom of speech) cannot override Article 21 (right to life and dignity). “Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place,” he said.

At the same time, the bench cautioned that any guidelines the Court considers “should not be misused by anyone” and that while rights must be protected, there must be a framework to ensure that the dignity of all is preserved.

Cartoonist Hemant Malviya Rebuked by Court Over Facebook Post

On July 14, a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar rebuked Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya Malviya, who is facing an FIR over an allegedly objectionable cartoon about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS, saying that his conduct was inflammatory and immature.

The cartoon, originally about Covid vaccines, was reposted by a third party in 2025 and shared by Malviya, leading to the FIR.

Justice Dhulia remarked that the cartoonist had shown immaturity. On being told that the cartoonist was aged over 50 years, Justice Dhulia said, “Still no maturity. We agree that it is inflammatory.”

While the bench today granted him interim protection from arrest, it again slammed the cartoonist for other social media posts made by him. Justice Dhulia expressed concern over the offensive nature of the posts and the language being used on social media, including by members of the legal fraternity.

The Court listed the matter after August 15 and directed both parties to complete pleadings in the meantime.

Recent Rulings Upholding Freedom of Speech

Notably, earlier this year, the Court has passed important rulings on issues relating to freedom of speech and expression. The bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan cautioned against criminalising satire or controversial speech simply because it offends.

On April 8, the Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had imposed Rs. 10 lakh costs each on Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawala, even after quashing an FIR against them for criticising Jain monk Tarun Sagar. The Supreme Court said that once the High Court had found that no offence was made out, it ought not to have imposed costs or engaged in moral policing. “Function of the court is not to do moral policing”, the Court observed.

In March, the same bench quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for posting a poem on Instagram. The judgment said judges are duty-bound to uphold fundamental rights even when they may not like the content. “We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution,” the Court said, and noted that literature, poetry, satire and drama enrich human life and are central to a dignified existence under Article 21.

The Court also emphasised the duty of the police to uphold the right to freedom of speech and expression. “Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of person to express the views must be respected and protected…Liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution. The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right.”

It said that law enforcement must evaluate speech not from the viewpoint of insecure or intolerant minds but from the perspective of strong and reasonable citizens.

The Court further observed –

“75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society.”