NEW DELHI: In two different cases, regarding "objectionable" posts on social media and sharing of a cartoon of PM Modi and RSS workers, Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over abuse of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression by citizens, particularly on social media.
Such posts, it said, were causing hatred and increase in litigation and clogging of the criminal justice system . It asked people to show restraint on the medium.
SC: Why can't citizens regulate themselves?
Hearing a plea of Wazahat Khan for clubbing of cases registered against him in different states for his objectionable posts against a Hindu deity on X, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said citizens must know the value of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
In another case filed by cartoonist Hemant Malviya, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar strongly objected to objectionable cartoons of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers on social media and said that right of freedom of speech and expression was being "abused".
"If they want to enjoy 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 bench observed in Khan's case.
The court said Khan should have shown restraint in his remarks. It was Khan's complaint that had led to the arrest of influencer Sharmistha Panoli, whom he accused of posting derogatory content on Islam in relation to a post on Operation Sindoor.
"One of the fundamental duties is to uphold unity and integrity of the country. So that is being violated. See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed. But to what extent can the State curb? 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 said.
To Malviya who sought anticipatory bail, the bench posed the question, "Why do you do all this?" Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for him, said that she was not justifying the social media post which may be "unpalatable and in poor taste" but raised the question whether it could be an offence.
The bench, while posting the case for Tuesday said, "This is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused."
Malviya is challenging a Madhya Pradesh high court order of July 3 refusing to grant him anticipatory bail. Malviya was booked in Indore in May on a complaint filed by lawyer and RSS worker Vinay Joshi.
Such posts, it said, were causing hatred and increase in litigation and clogging of the criminal justice system . It asked people to show restraint on the medium.
SC: Why can't citizens regulate themselves?
Hearing a plea of Wazahat Khan for clubbing of cases registered against him in different states for his objectionable posts against a Hindu deity on X, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said citizens must know the value of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
In another case filed by cartoonist Hemant Malviya, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar strongly objected to objectionable cartoons of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers on social media and said that right of freedom of speech and expression was being "abused".
"If they want to enjoy 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 bench observed in Khan's case.
The court said Khan should have shown restraint in his remarks. It was Khan's complaint that had led to the arrest of influencer Sharmistha Panoli, whom he accused of posting derogatory content on Islam in relation to a post on Operation Sindoor.
"One of the fundamental duties is to uphold unity and integrity of the country. So that is being violated. See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed. But to what extent can the State curb? 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 said.
To Malviya who sought anticipatory bail, the bench posed the question, "Why do you do all this?" Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for him, said that she was not justifying the social media post which may be "unpalatable and in poor taste" but raised the question whether it could be an offence.
The bench, while posting the case for Tuesday said, "This is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused."
Malviya is challenging a Madhya Pradesh high court order of July 3 refusing to grant him anticipatory bail. Malviya was booked in Indore in May on a complaint filed by lawyer and RSS worker Vinay Joshi.
You may also like
Uday Kotak calls for global adoption of India's CSR model
Mike Tindall makes admission after mocking Zara and Princess Eugenie
Golf star hurt by Rory McIlroy comments and wants private chat at The Open
Rachel Reeves is plotting to clobber millions with brutal tax raid, senior Tory warns
Gtech's 'flawless' cordless vacuum bundle is £200 off and makes cleaning 'so much easier'
