Bombay High Court Rejects Shiv Sena MLA's PIL On Misuse Of Social Media By Influencers, Comedians

The Bombay High Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a sitting MLA, Kiran Samant, concerning 'misuse' of social media by influencers, content creators and comedians.

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Karnik observed that an efficacious remedy is available under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009, to block access to information. The Court noted that the PIL has a general prayer of curbing the misuse of digital platforms by influencers, public personalities and comedians, and relief on such general prayer could not be granted.

Notably, Samant impeladed Kunal Kamra as a party to the PIL. During the hearing, Samant's counsel referred to his past videos and said they maligned the judiciary. He said that Kamra was impleaded to give an example of the misuse happening on social media.

The petition states that under the garb of freedom of speech, influencers are commercialising speech. It is stated that influencers and content creators are making money out of defamatory speeches. 

The petition states that even the judiciary is being maligned by social media posts. It stated that due to misuse of social media, 'integrity of India' is being threatened. It states that there is an urgent necessity to curb “nefarious activities” on social media.

Samant submitted that under the guise of free speech, people are misusing social media and making money out of such speech. He prayed for the formulation of a Social Media Vigilance Committee to censor content that violates reasonable restrictions placed on freedom of speech.

During the hearing, the Court questioned Samant's counsel why the petitioner impleaded Kunal Kamra (respondent no. 3).

The counsel responded that it was to show the misuse of digital platforms being done under the garb of free speech. He said that certain videos of Kamra were contemptuous in nature and maligned judiciary.However, the Court orally remarked that the whole petition revolves around Kamra and targets one individual, which could not be done in a PIL. 

The Court further orally remarked that while certain content may be a misuse of social media according to the petitioner, it may be freedom of speech for others. It also said that the petitioner could not determine what was reasonable or not, as there is a law regulating social media content. 

Senior Advocate Khambata, appearing for Kamra, argued that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution even applies to commercial speech. He submitted that the law provides sufficient remedies to the petitioner to block access to information.

He argued that the petition was not a genuine PIL. He said that the allegations of contempt by Kamra seek to overreach the Supreme Court, as a contempt petition is pending against Kamra regarding his tweets on the Supreme Court and judges.

In its order, the Court referred to Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. It noted that Rule 6 enables an individual to send a complaint to a Nodal Officer for blocking access to information. It further noted that Rule 11 enables expeditious disposal of requests.

The Court thus observed that aggrieved persons have a forum under the 2009 Rules to block content.

The Court further referred to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which mandate due diligence to be observed by intermediaries. It noted that Rule 3(2) provides for a grievance redressal mechanism.

The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kunal Kamra vs Union of India (2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 482), where the amendment to the IT Rules 2021, which allowed the Central government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify "fake and false" information about its business, being circulated on digital platforms were declared unconstitutional and struck down.

On the petitioner's relief to direct the formation of a Social Media Vigilance Committee, the Court noted that the same is in the realm of policy making and thus it cannot issue a direction on the prayer. It noted that as Samant himself is a lawmaker, it is open for him to take an appropriate action.

It further noted that prayer to direct the IT Ministry to implement the IT Act and Rules is coached in general and wide terms.

It noted that it was open for him to approach an appropriate authority for the misuse of social media.

With these observations, it disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Kiran Samant vs. Union Of India (PIL(L)/11839/2025)