New Delhi, Sep 23 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to social media platforms to identify, prevent, remove, or block unlawful, provocative, hateful, abusive and misleading digital content, including fake news and statements allegedly capable of threatening public order and communal harmony.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to entertain the plea filed by Hitendra Kumar Parsottambhai Gadhiya and granted him liberty to pursue alternate remedies.
“You can pursue your alternate remedies,” the CJI-led Bench told the petitioner’s counsel, declining to tag the plea with another pending matter concerning social media content.
The PIL, filed through advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, had sought directions to the Centre, Delhi government, and major social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X, and WhatsApp, to take effective steps against unlawful digital content in accordance with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder.
The petitioner had sought directions for identification, prevention, removal and/or blocking of content described in the plea as “unlawful, provocative, hateful, abusive, derogatory, misleading and objectionable digital content”, including fake news, incendiary speeches, and anti-national slogans.
The plea also sought appropriate action against persons responsible for creating, uploading, circulating and disseminating content not protected by law, while stressing that any regulatory action must remain consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
The petitioner claimed that the circulation of fake messages and provocative statements through social media platforms and SMS had contributed to disruption of public order and communal harmony. The PIL also alleged that social media intermediaries had failed to act in accordance with their statutory obligations under the Information Technology Act and the Rules framed thereunder and had not removed or blocked certain content which amounted to prohibited speech.
The petition referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, particularly its observations concerning offences involving promotion of enmity between groups on grounds of religion and deliberate or malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
The petitioner relied on the judgment to contend that social media platforms were required to comply with the legal framework governing unlawful content while also respecting constitutionally protected speech. The plea further alleged that social media platforms, including X, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp and Instagram, had failed to take adequate action against content containing anti-national slogans and statements against the sovereignty and integrity of India, despite the statutory framework governing intermediaries.
The petitioner sought directions to the intermediaries concerned to comply with their statutory obligations and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, against persons responsible for the creation and dissemination of unlawful content.
–IANS
pds/vd
About the Author
