The Supreme Court on Monday said citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression and observe self regulation as it mulled guidelines to regulate offensive posts on social media.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan was hearing a plea of one Wazahat Khan booked in FIRs in several states, including West Bengal, for his objectionable posts on X against a Hindu deity.
On June 23, the top court granted him interim protection from coercive action till July 14.
Khan had filed a complaint against another social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video.
Offensive comments should not be made in response to similar posts, his lawyer said in court.
“The citizens must know the value of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The State can step in case of violations… Nobody wants the State to step in (sic),” Justice Nagarathna said.
The judge continued, “All this divisive tendency on social media has to be curbed.”
The bench clarified it did not mean censorship.
“There should be fraternity among citizens,” the bench said, as it considered framing guidelines on freedom of speech and expression for citizens.
The bench underlined the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution on freedom of speech and expression, saying they had “rightly been placed”.
The bench, in the meantime, extended the interim protection from arrest to Khan till the next hearing in the case and asked the counsel to assist it in dealing with the larger issue of self regulation of freedom of speech and expression of citizens.
Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him.
The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued.
“I have deleted all of them and apologised,” his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps “reaping what he has sown”.
His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2.
