Not exercising restraint on social media may lead to state intervention: Supreme Court
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan also considered framing guidelines to control 'divisive tendencies' on social media platforms, PTI reported.
The bench was hearing a plea by Kolkata resident Wajahat Khan who had sought consolidation of first information reports filed against him in several states in connection with his allegedly objectionable posts about Hindu deities on social media.
The court cited the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The provision outlines the restrictions that can be placed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
The bench said that the restrictions had been placed correctly and that the state can step in when there was a violation.
'We are not speaking about censorship,' Live Law quoted Nagarathna as saying. 'But in the interest of fraternity, secularism and dignity of individuals...We will have to go into this beyond this petition.'
Nagarathna said that one of the fundamental duties of citizens was to uphold the unity and integrity of the country. '…See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed,' she said. 'But to what extent can the state curb?'
She went on to ask: '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 asked the petitioner's counsel and the state 'to assist vis-à-vis the guidelines to be issued to the citizens to comply'.
In March, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to frame regulations to stop the broadcast of programmes that do not meet the 'acceptable moral standards of our society', particularly on social media platforms while ensuring that the measures do not impinge the fundamental right to free speech.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
New Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
CPM calls for a nationwide protest against SIR in Bihar
NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) on Saturday called for a nationwide protest on August 8 against SIR. A statement by the Polit Bureau of the party alleged that the Election Commission (EC) is biased in favour of the BJP-led government and complicit with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in implementing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar. 'The EC, which until now had acted in favour of the BJP-led government, has now become complicit in implementing the RSS or Sangh Parivar agenda. This (SIR) attack on democratic rights, which is sought to be extended across the country, must not be allowed. It is to be noted that even some of the alliance partners of the BJP, like the TDP, have voiced their concerns about the SIR. The CPM calls for protests to be held throughout the country on 8th August 2025 against this anti-democratic exercise of the EC,' read a statement issued by the Polit Bureau of the party on Saturday. The party further said that the Commission wants to extend this exercise to the entire country-- in the name of revising the electoral rolls-- and is appropriating the authority to verify the citizenship of voters, which is outside its constitutional remit. 'Under the baseless pretext of weeding out foreigners from the electoral rolls, they are disenfranchising vast sections of minorities and other select groups. The entire process is fraught with various violations, and even the right to vote guaranteed by the Constitution may be denied to many," the party said. "The NRC exercise, which was widely opposed by the people before the Covid pandemic, is sought to be enforced surreptitiously through the back door,' the party added.
News18
41 minutes ago
- News18
Liquor scam: YSRCP MP Midhun Reddy appears before SIT
Amaravati, Jul 19 (PTI) Rajampeta LS member PV Midhun Reddy on Saturday appeared before the Special Investigation Team probing the alleged Rs 3,200-crore liquor scam during the previous YSRCP regime. The YSRCP leader arrived in Vijayawada to attend the probe and his questioning comes in the wake of the arrest of other accused persons–Dhanunjay Reddy, Krishna Mohan Reddy and Balaji Govindappa. The opposition party slammed Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for allegedly indulging in vindictive behaviour and foisting 'false' cases against people close to YSRCP supremo YS Jagan Mohan Reddy. The case against Mithun Reddy is part of a larger vindictive conspiracy to arrest people who are in close proximity to the party leadership, said senior YSRCP leader Malladi Vishnu in a party release. 'But we will bounce back to call the bluff of Chandrababu Naidu," he said, adding that the more vindictive the actions of the Naidu government, the stronger YSRCP's resolve becomes to fight back and expose the 'failures and corruption' of the coalition government. 'I am confident that justice will prevail and that the judiciary will act fairly. His decision to attend the inquiry shows his determination to prove his innocence and his respect for the rule of law," Reddy told PTI Videos. PTI STH KH view comments First Published: July 19, 2025, 16:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
