Balancing Freedom of Expression and the Right to Dignity

 

In the 21st century, the internet and social media have transformed the boundaries of communication and expression. Today, every individual, whether an  ordinary citizen or a celebrity can reach millions within seconds. This is both a boon and a challenge for a democratic society. In this context, the recent remarks made by the Supreme Court during the hearing of a case involving social media influencers not only steered this debate in a new direction but also made it clear that balancing freedom of expression with the right to dignity is one of the greatest tests of modern society.

The apex court commented on some allegedly comic content by five social media influencers including Samay Raina, stating that no one has the right to hurt the dignity of persons with disabilities, the ill, or the marginalized. The court further emphasized that an apology or compensation should not be a mere formality but should serve as a deterrent to prevent such actions in the future.

This remark is crucial in itself, as in the digital world, satire and humor are often taken to extremes, where they transform into insult or exploitation. The Supreme Court's stance makes it clear that freedom of expression be it under the guise of art, humor or entertainment cannot come at the cost of human dignity. In today’s world, the social media ecosystem values virality more than the quality of content. Every influencer wants their videos or posts to garner millions of views and likes.

This is why comedians or digital content creators often pick sensational or controversial topics. However, this trend often targets already marginalized sections of society such as the differently-abled, elderly, mentally ill, or economically weaker groups since they are easier to mock and attract quick attention. The court rightly stated that encouraging such trends is not only unethical but also against constitutional values. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of expression. This is the soul of democracy. But Article 19(2) also imposes reasonable restrictions on this freedom, including those based on public order, morality, decency, and defamation.

On the other hand, Article 21 guarantees every citizen the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity. This is where a clash often occurs between the freedom of expression and the right to dignity. The Supreme Court, in this matter, has to weigh both rights and determine which one takes precedence under which circumstances. So far, the court’s approach has been to maintain a balance in cases of conflict, without ignoring dignity.

An interesting question raised during the hearing was whether commercial and non-commercial content should be judged by different standards. Social media influencers are often linked to brand promotions and advertisements. Their content is not just a personal opinion but also a source of income. Shouldn't they then bear greater responsibility?

From a constitutional perspective, the right to expression is given equally to all citizens. Media, journalists, or influencers do not have any extra privileges. However, for commercial expressions, stricter accountability can be enforced under the law. For example, misleading claims in advertisements are punishable. Similarly, if an influencer is earning through their videos, there is a greater expectation that their content respects social sensitivities. The Attorney General informed the court that the government is in the process of formulating guidelines for social media content. But the court rightly noted that policy decisions should not be rushed based on one case.

In fact, the internet is such a vast and diverse space that it’s impossible to regulate everyone with a single rule. On the other hand, absolute freedom leads to chaos. Hence, there is a need for a balanced policy framework, focusing on key aspects like:

• Content Accountability: Influencers and creators must ensure their content does not hurt the dignity of any community or individual.
• Platform Responsibility: Platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook must act promptly upon receiving complaints.
• Deterrence through Punishment: Compensation or punishment should be severe enough to set a precedent.
• Education & Training: Content creators should be educated in digital ethics, constitutional values, and social diversity.

It is also true that satire and humor are essential in any democracy. They are powerful tools to criticize authority. However, the true strength of humor lies in punching up targeting the powerful not the weak.

When humor is directed at the disabled or the suffering, it becomes a display of inhumanity. The Supreme Court's remarks remind us that freedom and sensitivity must go hand in hand. Other democratic countries have also taken strong steps in this area. In the US and Europe, there are strict laws against hate speech and disability discrimination. Similarly, the UK has introduced new rules against online abuse.

In a diverse society like India, the challenge is even greater, as issues related to religion, caste, gender, and disability are more sensitive. Technology is evolving rapidly. Tools like artificial intelligence, deepfake, and virtual reality are making content creation more complex. Tomorrow, if an AI-generated video mocks a marginalized group, who will be held accountable—the creator, the platform or the tech company? The Supreme Court’s recent comments will help advance this discussion as well.

Social media has given people an unprecedented platform to express their views, but freedom comes with responsibility. The firm stance taken by the Supreme Court is the need of the hour. The court made it clear that the dignity of any individual cannot be compromised, atonement should not be symbolic but a deterrent, and any policy framework should be balanced and future-proof.

Ultimately, society must also ask: Will we accept inhumanity in the name of entertainment, or will we prioritize sensitivity? The true power of social media will be proven only when it upholds democratic values—freedom, equality, and dignity instead of violating them.