Cautioning that failure to exercise self-restraint on social media would invite state intervention, the Supreme Court Monday mulled framing guidelines to control ‘divisive tendencies’ on virtual platforms.
Hearing a plea by Kolkata resident Wazahat Khan seeking consolidation of FIRs registered against him in different states over his ‘offensive’ social media posts, Justice B V Nagarathna presiding over a two-judge bench 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.”
Pointing out that “Article 19 is against the state, what you call it – verticality,” the judge asked, “what about horizontality?”
Justice Nagarathna said, “One of the fundamental duties is to uphold the unity and integrity of the country… That is being violated. See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed.”
She then added, “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.”
The bench also comprising Justice K V Viswanathan said, “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.”
Justice Nagarathna sought to clarify, “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.”
Story continues below this ad
It was on Khan’s complaint that the Kolkata Police arrested law student Sharmishta Panoli, over her social media posts, from Haryana. She was later granted bail by the Kolkata High Court.
However, it subsequently came to light that Khan himself had posted allegedly divisive content on social media, and FIRs came to be filed against him in Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Haryana. During the pendency of the cases, the West Bengal Police also registered two FIRs against him and arrested him.
Khan then approached the Supreme Court, which on June 23 directed that no coercive action be taken against him in the other state FIRs or any other FIR that may be registered in the future over the same allegations.
On Monday, Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, submitted that he is not defending the posts made by Khan, but added that he had deleted those and apologised for the same.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Nagarathna, however, said abuse of the freedom of speech can clog the legal system and wondered what the solution could be. “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 kinds of cases. What is the solution to this?” she said, and added that “we are not from the point of view of the state, we are asking from the point of view of citizens.”
She further said that “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.”
Justice Nagarathna backed Justice Viswanathan’s remarks that fraternity among citizens would help bring down the hate.
“My learned brother rightly said that there should be fraternity between the citizens, then all this hate will come down,” she remarked.
Story continues below this ad
Advocate Agarwal said, “The oxygen of such speech is that people react,” and added that such awareness can be created “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.”
Justice Viswanathan said that it was “easier said than done.” He added, “When will people start to find it jarring? All right-minded people. All citizens.”
The counsel appearing for West Bengal said, “It all boils down to awareness. It has already become jarring, but people have to realise. That self-reflection has to come.”
He pointed out that self-regulation may be difficult as social media lack any editorial oversight.
Story continues below this ad
Posting the matter for hearing next after four weeks, the Court sought the assistance of the parties to examine the broader questions flagged by it.
Recently, another bench of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the case of YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, too, flagged the need to regulate social media content without encroaching on the fundamental right to free speech and expression.