Free Speech in the Digital Age: A doctrinal analysis of four recent Supreme Court cases on Article 19(1) (a) In a series of rulings, the Apex Court emphasises that the right to free speech must co-exist with dignity, secularism, and the collective conscience of a diverse society; this legal resource examines this trend where the apex court is increasingly foregrounding Article 21 (right to dignity) as a counterweight to Article 19(1) (a), especially in contexts where speech targets marginalised groups
21, Jul 2025 | CJP Team
The right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, is foundational to democratic governance. It protects the right of individuals to express their opinions without fear of state reprisal and is essential to the functioning of a free press, the conduct of political debate, the critique of public officials, and the articulation of artistic, religious, and academic ideas. However, this right is not unfettered. Article 19(2) imposes constitutionally permissible “reasonable restrictions” on this freedom in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
The emergence of digital platforms and social media has drastically altered the nature and reach of speech. It has amplified individual voices and democratized access to discourse but has also resulted in the rapid proliferation of hate speech, misinformation, and digitally mediated harassment. As a result, the Indian judiciary is increasingly called upon to interpret Article 19(1)(a) in new and complex contexts involving viral speech, horizontal harms, satire, and artistic or academic dissent.
This legal resource undertakes a detailed doctrinal analysis of four recent, and significant, Supreme Court cases:
- Wazahat Khan v. Union of India (July 14, 2025)
- SMA Cure Foundation v. UOI & Ranveer Allahabadia v. UOI (July 15, 2025)
- Hemant Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (July 15, 2025)
- Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana (July 16, 2025)
Each of these cases involves a critical inquiry into the nature, scope, and limits of free speech in India’s constitutional framework, and together they reveal emerging patterns in the Court’s jurisprudential approach to speech rights in the digital age.
Case summaries, oral observations and judicial reasoning
- Wazahat Khan v. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) No. 247/2025)
Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan
Background: Wazahat Khan, a Kolkata-based citizen, was booked in multiple FIRs across Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Haryana for social media posts allegedly containing derogatory comments about Hindu deities and festivals, deemed capable of inciting communal hatred. Ironically, the FIRs were registered in retaliation to an earlier complaint filed by Khan that had led to the arrest of another influencer, Sharmistha Panoli. Sharmistha Panoli had earlier been arrested following Khan’s complaint, after she allegedly made inflammatory social media posts that mocked Islamic practices and targeted Muslim identity. Khan’s petition before the Supreme Court sought the quashing or consolidation of these FIRs and protection from arrest.
Key observations during the hearing: The bench did not deliver a final order but made powerful oral remarks. Justice Nagarathna emphasised that Article 19(1)(a) is not an unqualified right and must be interpreted in light of the values of fraternity, unity, and integrity as articulated in the Preamble. She introduced a significant concept: the “horizontal dimension” of free speech—that is, the idea that speech may harm other citizens, not just involve state action.
“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. Article 19 is against the state, what you call it – verticality. What about horizontality?”
The Court, as per the report of LiveLaw, expressed concern about the sheer volume of litigation arising from social media abuse and the burden it places on law enforcement. Justice Viswanathan stressed the role of social awareness and social boycott of hate content as preferable to state censorship. The Court hinted at the possibility of issuing guidelines or norms for digital speech and invited senior counsel to assist.
“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 kind of cases. What is the solution to this? We are not from the point of view of state, we are asking from the point of view of citizens.”
The order of the Court may be read here.
- SMA Cure Foundation v. Union of India & Ranveer Allahabadia v. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 83, 85/2025; W.P. (C) No. 460/2025)
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Background: SMA Cure Foundation, an advocacy organization for persons with disabilities, filed a petition alleging that comedians Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal, Balraj Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Tanwar had made demeaning jokes targeting the disability community. Parallelly, YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani faced multiple FIRs for obscene and vulgar content posted as part of the “India’s Got Latent” controversy.
Key observations during the hearing: The bench, as per the LiveLaw report, made a striking doctrinal assertion: that the right to freedom of speech cannot override the right to dignity under Article 21. Justice Surya Kant explicitly stated:
Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined. Foundation has raised serious issue. Something very disturbing. Right to dignity also emanates from right which someone else is claiming…Article 19 can’t overpower Article 21…Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place”
The Court showed disapproval of online content that mocked marginalised groups and questioned whether comedians and digital influencers, who wield significant public influence, could be held to higher standards of accountability.
Importantly, the Court did not order any punitive measures but instead called for wider debate on formulating enforceable guidelines. It invited the Attorney General to assist and welcomed participation from the Bar and other stakeholders. This reflects a shift in judicial function—from adjudication to constitutional norm-building.
“For that, we can grant more time…we would like to test the guidelines…you have to have guidelines which are in conformity with constitutional principles, comprising both parts – freedom, where limit of that freedom ends, and where duties start…we would like to invite open debate on that…members of Bar, stakeholders and all so-called stakeholders, all invited”
The order of the Court may be read here.
- Hemant Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 9906/2025)
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar
Background: Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya faced FIRs for a satirical cartoon, originally published in 2021, depicting a figure in RSS uniform receiving a COVID-19 vaccine from a caricature of PM Modi. The cartoon was later re-shared in May 2025 with new commentary on caste census, which the police claimed was derogatory and communally provocative.
Key observations during the hearing: The High Court had denied Malviya anticipatory bail, observing that his speech was malicious and repeat in nature. The Supreme Court disagreed, offering interim protection and accepting a written apology.
Justice Dhulia noted that while speech may be offensive, it must still fall within the scope of permissible criticism or satire unless it meets the thresholds of incitement or criminality. The Court rejected ASG Nataraj’s attempts to rely on unrelated social media posts and refused to expand the scope of inquiry.
The bench emphasised proportionality and due process, suggesting that criticism of public figures, even when expressed through satire, deserves constitutional protection unless it crosses specific statutory thresholds.
The order of the Court may be read here.
- Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana (W.P. (Crl.) No. 219/2025)
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Background: Professor Mahmudabad was arrested over two posts relating to “Operation Sindoor”—a term associated with India’s counterterrorism operations following an attack in Pahalgam. The FIR alleged that the posts promoted disharmony and questioned national sovereignty. The Court had earlier directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior IPS officers not connected to Haryana or Delhi.
Key observations during the hearing: The SIT submitted an interim report revealing that Mahmudabad’s electronic devices had been seized and sent for forensic examination. The Court took exception to this scope creep, reiterating that its previous order had clearly limited the SIT’s inquiry to the contents of the two posts.
Justice Kant rebuked the State: “You don’t require him (Mahmudabad); you require a dictionary.”
The Judge emphasised that Mahmudabad’s full cooperation had been noted and that he need not be summoned again. The Court clarified that the conditions imposed on his bail were limited to refraining from commenting on sub-judice issues and did not prevent him from writing on other subjects.
The order of the Court may be read here.
Emerging themes
- Dignity vs. speech: The Court is increasingly foregrounding Article 21 (right to dignity) as a counterweight to Article 19(1) (a), especially in contexts where speech targets marginalised groups (e.g., PwDs, minorities).
- Horizontal constitutionalism: Free speech harms are being judicially recognised as capable of violating the rights of fellow citizens, not just triggering state restrictions.
- Proportionality and overreach: The Court is attentive to investigative excesses. It has insisted on narrowly tailored inquiries limited to the impugned speech, especially where speech is political or academic.
- Restorative justice models: The preference for apology, deletion, and voluntary restraint over punitive action is becoming evident. The Court appears to favour reconciliation and reform over retribution.
- Judicial guidance on digital speech: All four cases underscore the urgent need for a principled legal framework, judicial or legislative, to navigate the evolving challenges of digital speech, satire, and platform responsibility.
- Academic and artistic freedom: Dissent, satire, and political commentary remain protected categories. However, speech that incites violence or promotes enmity is not shielded by Article 19(1) (a).
Conclusion
These four 2025 Supreme Court cases collectively represent a jurisprudential moment of recalibration. Rather than treating freedom of speech as an unqualified right, the Court is moving toward a value-based, relational model of free expression—one that recognizes its entwinement with dignity, fraternity, and public order.
Yet, this emerging framework remains under construction. The Court has, thus far, avoided prescribing hard norms. It has instead exercised judicial nudging—advising, hinting, and calling for broader debate. In doing so, it aims to balance constitutional fidelity with pragmatic caution.
As the Court navigates these complexities, it must be vigilant against the misuse of dignity and harmony as tools for suppressing legitimate dissent. What lies ahead is a judicially supervised regime of responsible, contextual, and inclusive free speech—one that reflects both the rights and the duties of Indian citizenship in the digital age.
Related:
Dissent Note: The alarming scope of Maharashtra’s Special Public Safety Bill, 2024
India’s Hate Speech Surge | Who’s Spreading It & Who It Targets | CJP’s Fight Against Hate
