Thu Sep 04 19:54:20 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a news article summarizing the provided text:
**The Hindu: Supreme Court Urges Government to Regulate Social Media Influencers**
**NEW DELHI, September 5, 2025** – The Supreme Court of India has called on the Union government to formulate guidelines regulating social media, citing concerns about influencers commercializing free speech in ways that may offend vulnerable groups.
The directive, issued on August 25, 2025, by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, instructs the government to consult with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association in drafting these regulations. The court’s intervention was prompted by a complaint from a non-profit organization representing individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, alleging derogatory remarks made by several comedians about people living with the disorder.
The core issue centers on whether commercial speech on digital platforms warrants regulation. Legal experts Apar Gupta, advocate and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, and Jay Vinayak Ojha, senior resident fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, weighed in on the matter in a discussion moderated by Aaratrika Bhaumik.
Gupta argued that existing legal mechanisms, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, already provide avenues for prosecution and content removal. He suggested that the court’s apprehension of a “regulatory void” is misplaced and driven more by public sentiment.
Ojha acknowledged that the FIRs already in place demonstrate that legal mechanisms are there. However, to construct an elaborate framework of legislation, subordinate rules, or guidelines on the basis of a single incident would be an overreaction.
Both experts cautioned against using dignity as a broad justification for restricting speech, fearing it could lead to censorship of unpalatable or controversial content. Gupta stated that restricting speech based on individual sensibilities risks inviting expansive censorship, while Ojha warned that the regulations could exert a chilling effect on comedians and satirists.
The experts also debated the implications of regulating commercial speech. Gupta noted that free expression and commerce are intertwined and that the fact that speech is commercial cannot in itself justify regulation. Ojha acknowledged the court’s established view that commercial speech falls within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a).
Both Gupta and Ojha emphasized the need for strong review mechanisms, stakeholder consultation, and transparency in any regulations implemented to ensure they don’t become tools for arbitrary suppression. Gupta cautioned against opaque takedown orders that have become a recurring feature of India’s regulatory landscape, and Ojha stressed the importance of reflecting respect for constitutional values of free speech.
The Supreme Court’s move underscores the ongoing debate about balancing free expression with the need to protect vulnerable communities in the digital age. The crafting of these regulations will be closely watched by content creators, digital platforms, and civil liberties advocates alike.
First Piper 