Introduction
Digital platforms such as X, YouTube, Threads, Reddit, etc. have transformed how people communicate and participate in public life. Information now circulates instantly, making online spaces central to democratic engagement. This expansion reflects the spirit of Article 19(1)(a),[1] This places free expression at the heart of Indian democracy.
In December 2025, the Ahmedabad district civil court ordered the Indian National Congress and its leaders to remove a deepfake video allegedly depicting a fabricated conversation between the PM and Gautam Adani, and directed X and Google to take it down, citing reputational harm.[2] As online speech increasingly shapes public perception and individual dignity, India faces a constitutional challenge of protecting freedom while addressing digital harm. This blog examines how that balance may be achieved.
Free speech in the digital era
- The Expanding Reach of Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) promotes open communication, accountability, and pluralism. Courts have consistently expanded their scope in response to social and technological change.
In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras and Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, the Supreme Court made it clear that free expression includes the circulation of ideas without pre-censorship.[3] In R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu,[4] The SC addressed privacy and limits on prior restraint over publication. It’s holding that lawful publication cannot be restricted by the State directly informs digital speech today, where online platforms act as modern spaces for expression and dissemination.
Commercial speech received protection in Tata Press Ltd v MTNL,[5] Recognising that advertisements also inform the public. Electronic broadcasts were protected in Odyssey Communications v Lokvidayan Sanghatana.[6]
The right to receive information, recognised in Raj Narain,[7] And the right to dissent through silence, affirmed in Bijoe Emmanuel,[8] show how Article 19(1)(a) continues to evolve. In the digital age, these protections extend to social media users who seek information, express disagreement, or choose not to conform in online spaces.
- Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(2)
Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on free expression in the interests of security of the State, public order, decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. Security of the State applies only to grave threats such as rebellion or espionage, not ordinary criticism. Defamation and contempt remain recognised grounds under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Articles 129 and 215.[9]
In S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram,[10] The Court articulated the proportionality doctrine, stressing that restrictions on speech must be narrow, necessary, and justified. This doctrine becomes central in the digital context, where online platforms amplify speech to unprecedented and often uncontrollable levels.
- Why Social Media Challenges Free Speech Doctrine
Social media presents challenges the Constitution did not anticipate. Algorithms determine visibility, anonymity weakens accountability, and content crosses borders instantly. A deepfake video falsely portraying the President promoting investment schemes highlighted the dangers of manipulated AI content.[11] Similarly, the circulation of doctored videos during the Kanhaiya Kumar episode in 2016 demonstrated how online narratives can intensify political polarisation.[12] These developments raise serious concerns about truth and democratic participation.
Supreme Court’s approach to digital speech
- Shreya Singhal and Online Expression
Widespread misuse of Section 66A of the IT Act led to the landmark decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India.[13] The law allowed arrests for vague terms like “annoying” or “offensive,” which resulted in arbitrary action, including the arrest of 2 young women in Maharashtra for a Facebook post. This violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21.[14]
Drawing from Romesh Thapar and Whitney v California,[15] The Court held that satire, criticism, and political commentary lie at the heart of free expression. Section 66A was struck down, ensuring that online spaces remain open to democratic debate.[16]
- Proportionality in Anuradha Bhasin
In Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India,[17] The Supreme Court held that restrictions on internet access must satisfy the proportionality test. Any shutdown must serve a legitimate aim, be the least restrictive option, and undergo regular review. The Court recognised that the internet has become essential for exercising rights under Article 19(1)(a).
- Private Platforms and Horizontal Rights
With private platforms dominating public discourse, the Court in Kaushal Kishor v State of Uttar Pradesh acknowledged that certain constitutional rights may operate horizontally when private actors shape the public sphere.[18] This is a significant development, as content moderation decisions are increasingly determining who gets heard online.
Digital harms and their democratic impact
- Deepfakes and Synthetic Manipulation
Deepfakes pose a serious threat by enabling impersonation and reputational harm. China’s Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services mandate labelling of synthetic content to curb misuse.[19] India, however, faces the challenge of addressing malicious manipulation without suppressing satire or creativity.
- Algorithmic Spread of Hate and Misinformation
Algorithms prioritise engagement over accuracy. Content that provokes anger or shock often receives more visibility, creating echo chambers and narrowing democratic dialogue. Harmful posts may go viral before platforms can intervene.[20] This environment quietly influences public opinion, raising concerns about fairness and inclusiveness.
- Online Harassment and Manipulated Targeting
Doxxing, impersonation, abusive trolling, and deepfake pornography have become routine.[21] Women, journalists, students, and activists often reduce their online presence due to constant harassment. This “chilling effect” limits discussion, shrinks participation, and impacts elections, where misinformation spreads rapidly.
Regulatory gaps in India
- Weaknesses of the IT Act 2000
The IT Act was drafted before the rise of social media and focuses largely on e-commerce and cyber fraud, not deepfakes or algorithmic manipulation. Academic commentary has pointed out that the vagueness of Section 79 on intermediary liability and Section 69A on blocking powers has led to inconsistent enforcement and self-censorship by platforms.[22]
Although the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, creates a structured framework for personal data protection, it does not directly address misinformation, deepfakes, or algorithmic manipulation.[23] Its privacy-focused approach leaves gaps in regulating harmful digital speech, a limitation that scholars have noted requires separate and speech-specific safeguards.[24]
- Concerns Around the IT Rules 2021 to 2023
The IT Rules were introduced to increase accountability, but raised serious concerns. Traceability requirements threaten encryption, and government fact-checking powers may chill political criticism. Courts have questioned whether broad categories like “fake” or “misleading” meet constitutional standards under the proportionality test.[25]
- Section 69A and Lack of Transparency
Although the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A in Shreya Singhal,[26] It did so, expecting transparent procedures. In reality, most blocking orders remain confidential, limiting public knowledge and judicial review.
Comparative global models
The United States follows a highly protective free speech model, permitting restrictions only when speech incites imminent lawless action, as held in Brandenburg v Ohio.[27] Platforms also enjoy broad immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. While supporters argue this protection sustains open debate, critics increasingly call for reform to address misinformation and platform accountability.[28]
The European Union adopts an accountability-based system. Under the Digital Services Act, large platforms must assess and reduce risks linked to harmful or misleading content, while the General Data Protection Regulation ensures strong data protection and greater user rights.
The United Kingdom focuses on preventing online harm through the Online Safety Act, which places a duty of care on platforms to address issues such as cyberbullying and grooming. While the framework aims to make digital spaces safer, critics caution that broad compliance duties may risk regulatory overreach and unintended restrictions on lawful speech.
Drawing a balance line for India
- Protecting Democratic Speech
Democracy survives when people can question the government without fear. Article 19(1)(a) protects even sharp or unpopular criticism. Restrictions must therefore remain confined to the grounds under Article 19(2) and apply only when speech causes real harm, such as incitement or deepfake deception, and not merely because it offends. In the digital age, the rule is: speech is free unless it creates concrete, immediate danger, not just because it offends someone.
- Transparency and Platform Accountability
Social media platforms quietly decide what the country sees, what trends, and which voices get buried. Users rarely know why a post was removed or why their reach suddenly drops. To keep digital spaces fair, platforms should give clear reasons for takedowns, allow proper appeals, and reveal how their algorithms rank content. Safe harbour must depend on responsible behaviour, not blind immunity.
- Independent Oversight for Digital Governance
Right now, government blocking orders often stay secret, and automated moderation removes content without giving people a chance to respond. India needs a neutral, expert-led digital oversight body that reviews takedowns, handles user appeals, and ensures transparency. With judicial involvement and technical expertise, such a body can protect rights while addressing serious digital harms under Section 69A fairly, openly, and without political influence.
Conclusion
Free speech online faces new pressures from deepfakes, harassment, and misinformation, yet the constitutional rule remains firm that expression is free unless it falls within Article 19(2). As technology evolves, India’s Constitution remains resilient, capable of protecting liberty while guiding the law to meet emerging digital challenges.
Author(s) Name: Pushkar Singh (Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar)
References:
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a)
[2] Court orders Cong, leaders to take down “deepfake” Modi-Adani video’ The Times of India (19 December 2025) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/court-orders-cong-leaders-to-take-down-deepfake-modi-adani-video/articleshow/126082885.cms accessed 20 December 2025
[3] Romesh Thapar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124; Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129
[4] R Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632
[5] Tata Press Ltd v MTNL (1995) 5 SCC 139
[6] Odyssey Communications Pvt Ltd v Lokvidayan Sanghatana (1988) 3 SCC 410
[7] State of UP v Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428
[8] Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
[9] Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s 2; Constitution of India 1950, arts 129, 215
[10] S Rangarajan v P Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574
[11] Cops probe Murmu’s fake video on investment’ The Times of India (Bengaluru, 20 December 2025) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/cops-probe-murmus-fake-video-on-investment/articleshow/126095754.cms accessed 20 December 2025
[12] JNU row: Did a fake video fuel the anti-national fire?’ India Today (18 February 2016) https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/panelists-debate-whether-kanhaiya-sedition-video-doctored-or-not-309451-2016-02-18 accessed 20 December 2025
[13] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
[14] Constitution of India 1950, arts 14, 19(1)(a), 21
[15] Romesh Thapar v State of Madras, above n 3; Whitney v California 274 US 357 (1927)
[16] Shreya Singhal v Union of India, above n 13
[17] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
[18] Kaushal Kishor v State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 4 SCC 1
[19] Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services (People’s Republic of China, jointly issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and Ministry of Public Security, 25 November 2022, effective 10 January 2023) https://www.chinalawvision.com/2025/02/digital-economy-ai/deep-synthesis-not-deepfake-how-ai-compliance-works-in-china/?utm_source=chatgpt.com accessed 20 December 2025
[20] Riya Dubey and Ashima Ghosh, Digital Governance and Free Speech in India by Navigating Algorithmic Censorship Policy Frameworks and Public Dissent (International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2025) https://unijisedu.com/index.php/ijis/article/download/165/128/287 accessed 20 December 2025
[21] Make It Real: Mapping AI-Facilitated Gendered Harm 2025 (Tattle & Meri Trustline, 3 November 2025) https://tattle.co.in/make-it-real-report.pdf accessed 20 December 2025
[22] Gautam Bhatia, ‘Free Speech and the Regulation of Social Media in India’ (2018) 10 NUJS Law Review 199
[23] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
[24] Gautam Bhatia, ‘The Digital Personal Data Protection Act and the Limits of Privacy-Based Regulation’ (2023) Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog
[25] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, above n 17
[26] Shreya Singhal v Union of India, above n 13
[27] Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 (1969)
[28] Meghan E McDermott, ‘Mitigating Misinformation on Social Media Platforms: Treating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a Quid Pro Quo Benefit’ (2023) Connecticut Law Review (online) https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/558 accessed 20 December 2025
