Introduction:

Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is important and a core fundamental human right available to individuals irrespective of any discrimination, but article 19 is not absolute and itself comes with certain reasonable restrictions laid down under article 19(2). With the advent of social media like X(twitter), Facebook, Instagram and so on, freedom of speech has undergone fundamental transformation. Social media platforms have become a primary forum for political disclosure, activism, journalism, public debate etc enabling people to now actively participate in democratic process, conversations which were earlier dominated by traditional media.

However, this revolution also comes with legal challenges with increase in circulation of misinformation, hate speech, online harassment, and threat to public order alarms the state to regulate online speech more aggressively and urgent need for more stringent laws. This has raised tension between safeguarding free speech and addressing legitimate concerns of harm.

This article examines the extent of freedom of speech in the age of increasing use of social media platform raising question on accountability and responsibility for regulating misuse of online freedom of expression.

Constitutional foundation of freedom of speech and expression:

Article 19(1)(a) and its scope:

Article 19(1)(a) grants citizens the right to freely express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas. This includes the freedom to express oneself through speech, writing, printing, visual representations, or any other means.

The scope of freedom of speech under article 19(1)(a) has been widen through various cases over the time to include freedom of press, right to receive information, the right to disseminate ideas: the supreme court in Ramesh Thapar vs state of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124) widened the ambit of freedom of speech by including freedom of press which means the right to print and publish without any interference from the state or any other public authority. But this Freedom, like other freedoms, cannot be absolute but is subject to well-known exceptions acknowledged in the public interests, which in India are enumerated in Article 19(2) of the constitution.

In the state of UP vs Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 865), the Supreme Court observed that the right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of speech. The Court further held that the people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries.

Reasonable restriction under article 19(2):

Article 19(2) gives state the power to put restriction on the freedom of speech and expression by enacting laws. However, the state restrictions must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and must adhere to the following grounds of article 19(2) in the interest of:

• Security of state

• Sovereignty of state

• Friendly relation with foreign states

• Public order

• decency and morality

• contempt of court

A landmark reaffirmation of these principles occurred in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015  5  SCC 1), where the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provision criminalised online speech that caused “annoyance” or “inconvenience,” and was held to be vague, overbroad, and outside the permissible grounds of Article 19(2). This judgment firmly established that online speech enjoys the same constitutional protection as offline speech. Article 19(2) reasonable restriction play a crucial role in maintain a balance between people’s rights and larger interest of state and society.

Social media as the modern public square:

Social media has now evolved as a major public square with platforms like X (formerly twitter), Facebook, Instagram which allows citizens to share videos, images. Text instantaneously potentially to millions of people. For instance, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020 SC 1308), the Supreme Court explicitly held that “the freedom of speech and expression also encompasses the right to carry on trade or profession through the internet,” and that any restrictions on online communication must still satisfy Article 19(2)’s tests of legality, necessity and proportionality. In short, what is true for newspapers and broadcasters in the offline world is largely true for social media in the digital world: it is a key channel of speech that enjoys constitutional protection.

Private platforms and constitutional limitations:

Many social media platforms despite their public role remains private entities. Indian courts have also clarified that fundamental rights under article 19 vertically applies against the states and not private companies. A recent Delhi high court ruling in Sanchit Kumar vs union of India and anr in which the appellant Sanchit Kumar accused X of violating his freedom of speech and expression and rights to assembly and association, under Article 19 of the Constitution, by suspending his account. He claimed that X, regulated under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, performed a “public function” as it facilitated public discourse through its social media platform. The petition stated that the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology had failed to enforce the laws adequately.

A public function involves public interest or is connected to a state obligation, the Court held. Such an entity’s action should be integral to state functions or the law must mandate the action upon the entity. This can include situations where the state outsources its functions to a private entity, or where the private entity becomes a necessary function for societal welfare because its service is so intertwined with state obligations.

Regulation of online speech and judicial developments:

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000-

The IT act 2000 remains a cornerstone in India’s internet regulation. section 69A of the act authorises the central government or any specified officers to order any government agency or internet intermediary(online websites, social media platforms) to block any online content from public access if they find that it is necessary to do so to protect India's sovereignty, integrity, Defense, state security, relations with foreign countries, public order, or to prevent serious crimes related to these matters.

The Information Technology(Intermediary Guidelines And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are key provisions designed to regulate online content platform. these rules has significantly expanded the regulatory regime by imposing due diligence obligations, grievance redressal mechanism, traceability requirements, and oversight over digital news media.

Judicial developments:

Several judicial pronouncements have shaped the regulation of online content and expanded the definition of freedom of speech and expression.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015  5  SCC 1),  the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the grounds that it was vague and overbroad, violating the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This decision marked a significant victory for freedom of expression online and set a precedent for future cases requiring online content regulation.

The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020 SC 1308) held that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. It ruled that restrictions on internet services and movement must be proportionate, lawful, and not indefinite, as prolonged shutdowns violate constitutional freedoms.

In LIC VS. prof. Manubhai D. Shah (1993 AIR 171) the court stated that the state controlled media cannot apply arbitrary editorial discretion to supress speech, and refusal to publish or broadcast must satisfy the stringent of article 19(2).this decision reinforces “fairness doctrine” for state entities and affirms that non statutory or vaguely applied guidelines cannot override fundamental right of speech.

The road ahead: Balancing free speech and regulation

With the wide reach of social media India now faces challenges of proper regulation of freedom of speech and expression. On one side the unregulated misinformation, hate speech and online threats have proven dangerous; on the other hand, overbroad censorship risks silencing dissent and art. The judiciary has repeatedly emphasized that Article 19(2) sets the sole permissible limits on speech, and any new restrictions must be carefully calibrated. meanwhile content moderation is another live debate where some argue that giving the government sweeping power to police social could itself undermine freedom and with the increasing and expanding use of social media especially with the introduction of artificial intelligence raises serious concerns for the development of laws that can adapt the evolving use freedom of speech in this digital era as the earlier laws are becoming outdated and there is a need to bring amendment in the previous laws or separate laws for proper regulation so that the balance can be maintained between freedom of speech and expression and its misuse.

Conclusion:

The issue of freedom of speech in the age of social media is among the most critical constitutional matters in India today. Even though technology has magnified the voices and opened the door for a more significant democratic participation, it has also revealed some weaknesses which the government is trying to cover up by means of regulation. The Indian constitution brings throughout its history to the fore the need to protect internet speech from being subjected to ambiguous, voracious or disproportionate legal measures—landmark verdicts like Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin being the main contributors of this.

In this context, the court will have to be the main actor in defending these rights from digital tyranny as well as the evolving landscape of rights. The ultimate challenge is to make sure that regulation empowers rather than represses democracy, thus keeping social media a place where vigorous discourse, dissent, and free flow of ideas happen and where they can be legally protected.

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the information provided, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim any liability for errors, omissions, or inadvertent inaccuracies. Readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional for guidance on any specific legal issue or matter.