INTEGRATED MAINS AND PRELIMS MENTORSHIP (IMPM) 2025 Daily KEY
| Exclusive for Subscribers Daily:
DIGIPIN and Adverse Effects of Social Media and its significance for the UPSC Exam? Why are topics like India-China border, India-Japan relations , BioE3 Policy, DIGIPIN important for both preliminary and main exams? Discover more insights in the UPSC Exam Notes for September 01 , 2025 |
For Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international Significance
For Mains Examination: GS II - Governance
Context:
On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court urged the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media, observing that influencers often commercialise free speech in ways that can offend the sentiments of vulnerable groups. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed that the regulations be prepared in consultation with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA). The directive comes at a time when nearly 491 million Indians are active on social media, highlighting the challenges of safeguarding free expression while simultaneously protecting individual dignity
Read about:
National Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA)
Adverse Effects of Social Media
Key takeaways:
- On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to draft a framework for regulating social media, noting that many influencers turn free speech into a commercial tool in ways that could hurt the sentiments of vulnerable communities.
- A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed that such rules be framed in consultation with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA).
- This direction gains importance at a time when India has nearly 491 million active social media users, underlining the delicate balance between safeguarding freedom of expression and protecting personal dignity.
- Under the Constitution, restrictions on free speech can only be imposed on the eight specific grounds listed in Article 19(2) — namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to offences.
- As Jay Vinayak Ojha, research fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, pointed out, laws already exist to regulate expression on these grounds. Importantly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the State cannot go beyond these constitutional limits.
- In the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) case, the Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, which criminalised vague expressions like “annoyance,” “insult,” or “hatred.” The judgment clarified that even speech that “offends, shocks, or disturbs” is constitutionally protected, and any restriction must meet the reasonableness test under Article 19(2).
- The principle was reaffirmed in Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), where a Constitution Bench ruled that the grounds in Article 19(2) are exhaustive and cannot be expanded. The judges stressed that no one can be penalised merely for holding opinions that do not align with constitutional values.
- This judicial position was further highlighted in March 2025, when the Court dismissed a criminal case filed by the Gujarat Police against Congress MP Imran Pratapgadhi, who was accused of inciting disharmony through a poem.
- Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that while speech may sometimes unsettle even judges, the judiciary has a duty to zealously protect the fundamental right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- The Court’s approach to commercial speech has also evolved. In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1959), the constitutionality of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 was challenged by advertisers.
- Although the Cou