INTRODUCTION
The growing use of hashtags offering unlimited power to criticise somebody based on their views, actions or appearances is now a trend. The recent incident involving standup comedian Kunal Kamra presents an instructive example of cancel culture, where his satirical writing, which frequently criticised the administration, provoked outrage from the public and led to show cancellations and airline bans.[1] Such instances vary from boycotting particular scenes from movies, series or other literary works which are perceived as objectionable by a particular sect of people to even prominent personalities who face backlash over their controversial views or statements. The #boycottkareenakapoor trended in 2021 only because she was accused of asking for INR 120 million for playing the role of Sita in the upcoming movie Ramayan.[2] These trends are not limited to only boycott but also leads to severe trolling and threats of rape or murder. In such incidents, various celebrities like Deepika Padukone due to her empathy towards the anti-CAA protestors[3], writers for publishing articles against the government or general public for showing dissent over a propaganda or majority ideology have to face these consequences, where they are already declared as criminals and are subject to harsh treatment affecting them both mentally and financially.
These incidents have been termed as cancel culture, which could be defined as the general disapproval and rejection of people, celebrities or other entities because of alleged transgressions or contentious behaviour.[4] The term cancel culture originated with the #MeToo movement, which gained momentum in order to boycott powerful individuals and hold them accountable for their acts. Many people in favour of the cancel culture argue that it gives voice to the marginalised section of society and holds the powerful people accountable in ways that the traditional system fails to[5], like the #blacklivesmatter movement, which presented an opportunity to black people to hold people accountable for being discriminatory.
VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
These trolls faced by people over the internet bring out a serious discussion over the right of freedom of speech and expression, and to what extent can a person be allowed to criticise somebody for presenting conflicting views. The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by our constitution is violated when there are attempts made by some people to publicly disgrace the person with different views or acting in a way that is perceived as outrageous by some. The backlash could include deplatforming, which is removing them from social network sites, or boycotting their platforms or shows.
The incident of vandalism of Habitat Comedy Club, the studio where Kunal Kamra performed, also highlights the consequences of the growing cancel culture turning into online vigilantism and unfairly penalising people without following the law.
TRIAL BY SOCIAL MEDIA
This ever-growing call-out culture, which is an important aspect of the cancel culture, includes the act of pointing out people for their alleged misconduct, to which a large audience of people responds. This has now escalated to public humiliation and holding the person guilty without any legal trial or any proof. This severely hampers the principle of due process of law, which stands for protecting the rights of the citizens and ensuring them a fair opportunity to be heard. In this rising cancel culture, the crime and the criminal is already decided without any conclusive proof and often faces humiliation publicly and threats of death and rape. Rhea Chakraborty was publicly humiliated and became a victim of media anger as she was labelled as a murderer without any proof. She was put on trial by the media by continuously portraying her as the reason for the unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput.
These incidents hamper the diversity of ideas as people may be afraid of sharing their views in order to avoid being picked out and trolled by people who have become intolerant of dissenting views and opinions. Due to such fear being accumulated in the minds of people, they avoid sharing their views, leading to self-censorship and constant surveillance by the government, ensuring the prevalence of the majority ideology. This same situation could be observed in the present political atmosphere, as any portrayal of incidents and facts that could go against the government is censored, like the film Santosh’s portrayal of the present caste bias in India, which was banned by the Censor Board of India.
CAN CANCEL CULTURE BE LEGALLY CHALLENGED?
Though Indian laws lack specific laws on cancel culture but several provisions can address its consequences, such as online defamation, cyberbullying and harassment. The legal provisions for defamation are mentioned under Section 499[6] and Section 500[7] of the IPC. Other provisions include Section 354D[8] of the IPC for stalking and Section 507[9] of the IPC for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.
The Information Technology Act, 2000[10], contains provisions in order to protect the rights of people over the internet, including Section 67[11], which contains provisions prohibiting the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. Section 66A[12] of the IT ACT,2000, criminalised sending offensive messages through communication services, was later struck down in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[13] as it violated the right to freedom of speech mentioned under Article 19[14] of the Indian Constitution. Though Section 79[15] of the IT Act,2000 provides a safe harbour to intermediaries like social media platforms, ISPs and hosting services, this protection is subject to certain conditions, including exercising due diligence, following government guidelines and removing unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge. In addition to these, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,2022[16], formulated additional guidelines that need to be followed for content takedown which are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
In the case of Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan v. Sushant Sinha & Ors.[17], the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction ordering the removal of defamatory articles from a website that allegedly contained false and defamatory statements against the plaintiff. Similarly, in the case of Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd.[18], the Supreme Court held that online intermediaries must take down defamatory content upon receiving specific knowledge of court orders regarding such content. Through these judicial pronouncements, the court highlighted the role of intermediaries in regulating the content on the internet and the protection of the rights of citizens.
CONCLUSION
Since cancel culture is a social problem dealing with lots of complexities, laws are not the only resort to curb the problem. In order to minimise the growing polarisation and the social exclusion of those who disagree with the common views, the society as a whole needs to be reformed. The people should acknowledge different views and understand their importance for a truly democratic state. The right way ahead could be finding the balance that respects both individual expression and social responsibility. The legislature should aim to formulate laws that prevent instances of public shaming over the internet while at the same time respecting the boundaries of freedom of speech and expression.
Author(s) Name: Anushka Raj (Chanakya National Law University)
References:
[1] Shagun Gupta, ‘Analyzing The Impact Of Cancel Culture On Freedom Of Speech And Expression In The Digital Age’ (2024) 4(2) IJLLR Journal <ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF CANCEL CULTURE ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN THE DIGITAL AGE> accessed 10 June 2025
[2] Palak Chawla, ‘Calls for boycott: Cancel culture in India’ (Media India Group, 20 June 2021) <Calls for boycott: Cancel culture in India – Media India Group> accessed 10 June 2025
[3] Idbd
[4]Shagun Gupta, ‘Analyzing The Impact Of Cancel Culture On Freedom Of Speech And Expression In The Digital Age’ (2024) 4(2) IJLLR Journal <ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF CANCEL CULTURE ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN THE DIGITAL AGE> accessed 10 June 2025
[5] Evelina Safanova, ‘Due Process vs. Public Backlash: Is it Time to Cancel Cancel Culture?’ (Social Media Legality, 13 November 2024) <Due Process vs. Public Backlash: Is it Time to Cancel Cancel Culture? – Social Media Legality> accessed 10 June 2025
[6]Indian Penal Code 1860, s 499
[7]Indian Penal Code 1860, s 500
[8]Indian Penal Code 1860, s 354D
[9]Indian Penal Code 1860, s 507
[10]The Information and Technology Act 2000
[11]The Information and Technology Act 2000, s 67
[12]The Information and Technology Act 2000, s 66A
[13]Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
[14]Constitution of India 1950, art 19
[15]The Information and Technology Act 2000, s 79
[16]The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,2022
[17]Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan v. Sushant Sinha & Ors (2019) CS (OS) 642/2018 & I.A. 17161/2018
[18]Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd. (2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1987 OF 2014
