Judiciary must protect rights, not grant state untrammelled power over speech
The article critiques the Supreme Court's call for government regulation of social media speech, warning that it risks empowering an executive already prone to curbing free expression. It argues that expanding state powers to police speech can stifle democratic discourse, suppress artistic and political expression, and lead to partisan monitoring. The author points to existing problematic regulations like the IT Rules, 2021, and asserts that the judiciary's core role is to safeguard constitutional rights, not to act as an unchallenged authority that grants the state unchecked power.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court's suggestion for social media speech regulation is criticized for potentially enhancing executive control over freedom of expression.
- Expanding state authority to police speech risks suppressing democratic discourse, art, and political dissent, fostering a climate of self-censorship.
- Existing regulations, such as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are cited as examples of problematic state control over online content.
- The judiciary's fundamental duty is to protect citizens' rights within the constitutional framework, rather than to facilitate the state's untrammelled power.
- Judicial pronouncements that justify regulation based on "misuse of freedom of speech" are seen as a misinterpretation of the judiciary's institutional role.
Exam Facts
- Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
- The article discusses the balance between freedom of speech and state regulation.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.