Bombay High Court disposed of Shiv Sena MLA's PIL on misuse of digital platforms by influencers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 30, 2025) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a sitting MLA, Kiran Samant (52) from Rajapur Assembly Constituency in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, raising grave concerns arising out of rampant misuse and abuse of internet and social media platforms by certain influential personalities.
The petition claimed that under the garb of free speech, the influencers are commercialising their content while deliberately spreading material that is scandalous, derogatory and demeaning to the judiciary and executive of India thereby posing a serious threat to public order, harmony and the rule of law.
The respondents in the matter are Government of India, GOOGLE LLC and satirist and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra. The MLA has impleaded Mr. Kamra for publishing contemptuous material on YouTube and the Government of India and GOOGLE for failing to regulate such contents.
Calling for enforcement of the IT Act, 2000, and the Intermediary Guidelines (2021), the petitioner has sought judicial directions to ensure accountability, responsible content moderation and protection of the judiciary from being targeted for commercial gain under the cloak of satire or criticism.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Karnik questioned why Mr. Karma was added in the case and said that it is a general PIL asking to curb the misuse of digital platforms by influencers, public personalities and comedians, hence, relief cannot be granted.
'What according to you may be misuse of social media platform, can be free of speech for the society. Who will decide whether it is a use or a misuse? I don't know how to grant this relief. This is selective targeting. You have impeded only one person but there are several others who say things about judiciary, and you haven't Impleaded them,' the Bench observed.
Mr. Samant argued that Mr. Kamra's tweets calling the Supreme Court 'the most Supreme joke of this country' and makes contemptuous remarks about retired Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
'Kamra posts an image of his fingers on Twitter with a caption aimed at CJI Arvind Bobde, interpreted as showing the middle finger. Contempt proceedings initiated against Mr. Kamra in the Supreme Court; then Attorney General K.K. Venugopal opines that Kamra's tweets amount contempt. Stand-up video titled 'Be Like' uploaded on YouTube by Kamra containing vulgar and demeaning remarks about the judiciary,' the petition said.
The MLA also said that the comedian makes content to mock independent agencies like the ED, CBI and judiciary and monetises such material through digital platform and recently uploaded a new video titled 'Naya Bharat A Comedy Special' on YouTube containing contemptuous content; the video garners 1.25 crore views.
Hearing the matter, the Bench said, 'You cannot determine what is reasonable and what is not. There is a law regulating these platforms and the court decides whether it is offensive or not. This PIL is directed against just responded 3 (Mr. Kamra). If guidelines are breached, you file a complaint, but PIL against an individual cannot be entertained.'
Senior advocate Darius Khambata argued that the petition seeks order against just one respondent. 'The petition seeks direction of vigilance of social media. This matter is before the Supreme Court now.'
On the petition seeking direction on the formation of a Social Media Vigilance Committee, the Bench said it is in the realm of policy making and thus it cannot issue direction on the prayer and his prayed to direct the IT Ministry to implement the IT Act and Rules is coached in general and wide terms.
The court noted that it was open for the petitioner to approach an appropriate authority for the misuse of social media and disposed of the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
36 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"Mutual respect, understanding will continue to guide our nations": Bangladesh's Chief Advisor appreciates PM Modi's message on Eid al-Adha
Dhaka [Bangladesh], June 8 (ANI): Bangladesh's Chief Advisor, Muhammad Yunus, has expressed appreciation for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's greetings and message on the occasion of Eid al-Adha. He expressed confidence that the spirit of mutual respect and understanding would continue to guide the two nations in working together for the well-being of the people of India and Bangladesh. 'I deeply appreciate your thoughtful message, kind greetings and warm wishes on the occasion of Eid-ul-Azha, which reflects the shared values between our two countries. I also would like to convey my warmest greetings to you, and through you, to the people of India on this auspicious occasion,' Yunus wrote in a letter to PM Modi on June 6. Yunus shared his letter and PM Modi's letter on X. He called Eid al-Adha a time of reflection that brings communities together in the spirit of festivity, generosity, unity, and sacrifice. He wished PM Modi and the people of India good health, happiness, peace, progress, and prosperity. 'Eid-ul-Azha is a time of reflection, which brings communities together in the spirit of festivity, sacrifice, generosity and unity, and inspires us all to work together for the greater benefits of the people across the world. I am confident that the spirit of mutual respect and understanding will continue to guide our nations to work together for the well-being of our peoples. On this blessed occasion, I wish you, Excellency, good health and happiness and the people of India peace, progress, and prosperity,' he wrote in a letter to PM Modi. His response came after PM Modi extended wishes to Yunus and the people of Bangladesh on Eid al-Adha on June 4 and termed the festival an 'integral part of the rich and diverse cultural heritage of India.' He noted that millions of Muslims in India celebrate Eid al-Adha with immense joy and brotherhood. In the letter to Yunus, he stated, 'On behalf of the people and the Government of India, I convey warm greetings to you and the people of Bangladesh on the auspicious occasion of Eid al-Adha. This holy festival is an integral part of the rich and diverse cultural heritage of India and is celebrated with immense joy and fervour by millions of people of Islamic faith across the country. It reminds us of the timeless values of sacrifice, compassion and brotherhood, which are essential in building a peaceful and inclusive world. I take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for your good health and well-being.' Eid al-Adha, also known as the Festival of Sacrifice, commemorates Prophet Ibrahim's willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God. The day is marked by prayers, charitable acts, and the ritual sacrifice of animals, with a message of sharing and empathy at its core. Earlier in April, PM Modi met Bangladesh Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC Summit in Bangkok and reiterated India's support for a democratic, stable, peaceful, progressive and inclusive Bangladesh. PM Modi underlined India's concerns related to the safety and security of minorities in Bangladesh, including Hindus, and expressed his expectation that the Bangladesh government would ensure their security, including by thoroughly investigating the cases of atrocities committed against them, according to a Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) release. In a press release, MEA stated, 'Prime Minister reiterated India's support for a democratic, stable, peaceful, progressive and inclusive Bangladesh. Enunciating India's people-centric approach to the relationship, Prime Minister highlighted that cooperation between the two countries has brought tangible benefits to the people of both countries. He underlined India's desire to forge a positive and constructive relationship with Bangladesh based on pragmatism.' 'Prime Minister urged that rhetoric that vitiates the environment is best avoided. On the border, strict enforcement of the law and prevention of illegal border crossings, especially at night, are necessary for maintaining border security and stability. Bilateral mechanism could meet as appropriate to review and take forward our ties,' it added. PM Modi expressed his conviction that all issues of mutual interest between India and Bangladesh would continue to be addressed and resolved bilaterally through constructive discussions, in the interest of their long-standing and mutually beneficial bilateral relationship. (ANI)
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Indian courts today are not defending free speech. They are managing it. And in this curious inversion of constitutional values, we are witnessing a quiet retreat from the principle that animated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: that speech, even provocative, offensive, or unsettling, is the citizen's shield against tyranny — not its tool. Once envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark of our democracy, the judiciary now increasingly resembles an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies and deference in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. But when courts focus on what was said rather than why the right to say it must be protected, the Republic is left vulnerable to a new tyranny: that of sentiment, outrage, and the lowest tolerance denominator. Let us begin with a chillingly ordinary example: a social media post by a 24-year-old man criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi. after the ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Was this tasteless? Perhaps. But taste is not a constitutional metric. The Allahabad High Court thought otherwise. In rejecting the plea to quash the first information report (FIR), the Bench declared that 'emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute'. That is a remarkable formulation. It subtly inverts the constitutional design: the citizen is no longer the source of power holding the state to account, but a child to be reprimanded for speaking too freely. A validation of outrage Instead of interpreting Article 19(1)(a) as a liberty that limits state power, courts have begun treating it as a licence that comes with behavioural conditions — conditions defined not by law but by the perceived dignity of public figures and institutions. Take the Kamal Haasan controversy in connection with his film, Thug Life. The actor made a remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil. The Karnataka High Court responded not by evaluating whether the actor's statement met the threshold of incitement, defamation, or hate, but by advising him to apologise to the 'sentiments of the masses'. This advice is corrosive. When courts suggest apologies for lawful speech, they set a precedent that expression must pass a popularity test. They validate the very outrage that threatens free speech, rather than shielding expression from it. An apology does not close the loop but only widens it, inviting further claims of offence. In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs Union Of India, the 'digital content creator and podcaster' was confronted with judicial comments bordering on cultural supervision for his use of explicit language in a podcast. The court directed the Union to clarify whether such 'vulgar' language fell outside constitutional protection. Here again, the concern was not whether the speech incited harm, but on whether it offended prevailing norms of taste and modesty — a dangerously subjective threshold. Similarly, historian and a professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, was dragged into proceedings after sharing critical views on the optics of India using a woman soldier to explain its war situation with Pakistan. The argument was that his comments hurt sentiments. That it even reached court underscores the problem: invoking hurt feelings is now sufficient to invite judicial scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech. The professor's scholarly critique became a matter for judicial assessment and a special investigation to assess whether there was any dog whistle intent that played on the fragility of the audience. A misreading Two disturbing patterns emerge from these cases. First, the judiciary is increasingly equating speech that provokes emotional reactions with legally actionable harm. This misreads the Constitution and the rationale of a democracy. The test for restricting speech under Article 19(2) is not whether it angers, irritates, or offends but whether it incites violence, hatred or disrupts public order. Second, by encouraging apologies and moral policing of language, courts create a perverse incentive. The more outrage a comment generates, the more likely it is to be litigated. This does not protect society. It emboldens mobs and serial litigants. It creates a market for offence. This shift is starkly evident in cases that involve the armed forces. In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court denied the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, relief in a defamation case on his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army . The High Court said that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to 'defame' the military. But defamation, as a legal standard, must be carefully assessed particularly when invoked by or on behalf of state institutions by busy-bodies. Likewise, in a previous first information report against a man using the word 'coward' to describe the Prime Minister after the recent military stand-down, the court saw no issue with Sections 152 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being invoked — laws meant for threats to sovereignty and public mischief . These laws, meant for sedition-like scenarios, are being contorted to punish sarcasm and satire. It is telling that courts will routinely deny the quashing of FIRs in such cases, claiming that it is too early to interfere and that police investigations must run their course. But this abdication is neither neutral nor passive. For the citizen facing criminal prosecution, the process itself is the punishment. The system does not need a conviction to chill speech. A summons and a charge sheet do the job. The Madras High Court has occasionally resisted this drift. But this was more about narrative correction than structural protection of speech. Courts in India must return to a principle-centric model of speech protection. Instead of obsessing over what was said, they must ask whether the speaker's right was violated, and not someone else's sentiment. Apologies should not be judicial recommendations. They should be individual choices. Otherwise, courts become confessional booths where speech is absolved not by legal reasoning but by remorse. And remorse demanded is remorse devalued — it empowers the outraged, not the rational. The signal to the citizen Moreover, as long as laws such as sedition or the ever-morphing public order clauses remain vague, courts must lean toward liberty. The doctrine of 'chilling effect' that is robust in American and European jurisprudence, has been acknowledged in India's courts but seldom enforced with spine. This is not just about high-profile speech or celebrities. It is about the slow attrition of constitutional confidence. When a YouTuber is told to bleep a joke, or a professor is dragged to court for a tweet, or a film-maker is told to grovel for linguistic pride the signal to the ordinary citizen is clear: express only what is safe, bland and agreeable. But democracies are not built on agreeable speech. They thrive on disagreement — noisy, rude, even reckless at times. The test of a society's strength is not how well it tolerates politeness, but how it handles provocation. Free speech is not just about giving offence, but about withstanding it. If India is to preserve its democratic soul, it must restore the dignity of dissent. It must not demand the dignity of institutions at the cost of liberty. Judges are the guardians of the Constitution, and not the curators of culture. They must protect the right to speak and not the comfort of the listener. Because when speech is chilled in courtrooms, freedom dies not with a bang, but with a sigh of deference. The new age of judicial sensitivity to sentiments is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of regression. It confuses harmony with homogeneity, and respect with restraint. Apologies should never be a legal strategy. And speech should not need blessings to be legitimate. Let our courts not forget that the Republic was not born from politeness but from protest. The Constitution came from the pen of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also wrote, '…the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible'. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
India.com
4 hours ago
- India.com
Mutual Respect, Understanding Will Continue To Guide Our Nations: Bangladeshs Chief Advisor Appreciates PM Modis Message On Eid al-Adha
Bangladesh's Chief Advisor, Muhammad Yunus, has expressed appreciation for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's greetings and message on the occasion of Eid al-Adha. He also expressed confidence that the spirit of mutual respect and understanding would continue to guide the two nations in working together for the well-being of the people of India and Bangladesh. "I deeply appreciate your thoughtful message, kind greetings and warm wishes on the occasion of Eid-ul-Azha, which reflects the shared values between our two countries. I also would like to convey my warmest greetings to you, and through you, to the people of India on this auspicious occasion," Yunus wrote in a letter to PM Modi on June 6. Yunus shared his letter and PM Modi's letter on X. He called Eid al-Adha a time of reflection that brings communities together in the spirit of festivity, generosity, unity, and sacrifice. He wished PM Modi and the people of India good health, happiness, peace, progress, and prosperity. "Eid-ul-Azha is a time of reflection, which brings communities together in the spirit of festivity, sacrifice, generosity and unity, and inspires us all to work together for the greater benefits of the people across the world. I am confident that the spirit of mutual respect and understanding will continue to guide our nations to work together for the well-being of our peoples. On this blessed occasion, I wish you, Excellency, good health and happiness and the people of India peace, progress, and prosperity," he wrote in a letter to PM Modi. His response came after PM Modi extended wishes to Yunus and the people of Bangladesh on Eid al-Adha on June 4 and termed the festival an "integral part of the rich and diverse cultural heritage of India." He noted that millions of Muslims in India celebrate Eid al-Adha with immense joy and brotherhood. In the letter to Yunus, he stated, "On behalf of the people and the Government of India, I convey warm greetings to you and the people of Bangladesh on the auspicious occasion of Eid al-Adha. This holy festival is an integral part of the rich and diverse cultural heritage of India and is celebrated with immense joy and fervour by millions of people of Islamic faith across the country. It reminds us of the timeless values of sacrifice, compassion and brotherhood, which are essential in building a peaceful and inclusive world. I take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for your good health and well-being." Eid al-Adha, also known as the Festival of Sacrifice, commemorates Prophet Ibrahim's willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God. The day is marked by prayers, charitable acts, and the ritual sacrifice of animals, with a message of sharing and empathy at its core. Earlier in April, PM Modi met Bangladesh Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC Summit in Bangkok and reiterated India's support for a democratic, stable, peaceful, progressive and inclusive Bangladesh. PM Modi underlined India's concerns related to the safety and security of minorities in Bangladesh, including Hindus, and expressed his expectation that the Bangladesh government would ensure their security, including by thoroughly investigating the cases of atrocities committed against them, according to a Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) release. In a press release, MEA stated, "Prime Minister reiterated India's support for a democratic, stable, peaceful, progressive and inclusive Bangladesh. Enunciating India's people-centric approach to the relationship, Prime Minister highlighted that cooperation between the two countries has brought tangible benefits to the people of both countries. He underlined India's desire to forge a positive and constructive relationship with Bangladesh based on pragmatism." "Prime Minister urged that rhetoric that vitiates the environment is best avoided. On the border, strict enforcement of the law and prevention of illegal border crossings, especially at night, are necessary for maintaining border security and stability. Bilateral mechanism could meet as appropriate to review and take forward our ties," it added. PM Modi expressed his conviction that all issues of mutual interest between India and Bangladesh would continue to be addressed and resolved bilaterally through constructive discussions, in the interest of their long-standing and mutually beneficial bilateral relationship.
