Supreme Court’s call for self-regulation: Noble ideal or wishful thinking?

The learned justices of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, while hearing a plea by a litigant named Wazahat Khan who had been booked in FIRs in several States, including Assam and West Bengal, for his allegedly objectionable posts on X, appeared to be indulging in wishful thinking when they observed that citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression and observe self-regulation if the ecology of hatred currently raging in the nation was to be combated.

“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,” one of the justices stated. He also desired that all the divisive tendencies on social media have to be curbed and “there should be fraternity among citizens.”

Without doubt, such sentiments echo in the minds of all sensible Indians, who too want to see fraternity and goodwill among the extraordinarily diverse communities following diverse religions, languages, customs, et al, which constitute ‘the idea of India.’ Rational elements in the country also fully agree with the view that the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution on freedom of speech and expression, had “rightly been placed”.

Obviously, had there been no restrictions and no provision for State intervention, the outcome would have been absolute anarchy!

The bench also observed that having an opinion is one thing, but to say that in a particular way is an abuse, and transforms into hate speech. The justices, apparently, prefer self-regulation of freedom of speech and expression by the citizens themselves rather than censorship by the State.

Though they did not specifically allude to the happenings that took place during the ‘Emergency’, the oblique reference surely was to that infamous period. However, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride – within the prevailing climate of religious bigotry and divisions based on caste and class, the idealistic tenor of the justices’ desires seems totally out of place despite their validity.

There can be little doubt that greater fraternity among citizens would reduce hatred, while there was a real need for self-restraint in the exercise of freedom of speech, especially on social media. But the seminal issue in question is how to attain such a Utopian level in society! One must bear in mind that India is an incredibly complex entity; it also has a sizable segment of people who are more guided by irrational concepts rather than rational precepts.

The justices had hinted at intervention by the judiciary itself in framing some guidelines as to what can be placed on social media. Given the prevalent environment of mutual abhorrence in the country, which is fuelled by anti-secular elements, this would be a far more practical step rather than mere wishful thinking!