The Supreme Court today expressed reservations about issuing directions for the removal of social media content, highlighting the delicate balance between regulation and fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and privacy.

During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi underscored the complexity of framing regulatory guidelines, cautioning against judicial overreach in an area involving competing constitutional values.

“Please don’t overestimate us. We are not experts… we don’t know so many things…We are not a panacea of all evils. If you suggest regulations which curb free speech and expression…we cannot do it. But if it’s blatantly violating the right to privacy. Then what?”

The Court noted that while concerns around harmful online content are significant, any regulatory intervention must carefully balance the right to free speech with the right to privacy and protection from harm.

“If you suggest regulations affecting freedom of speech and expression, that may create problems. At the same time, if it is too open, it may violate others’ rights, including the right to privacy.”

Emphasising the need for a nuanced approach, the Bench questioned the petitioners on what specific framework or balance they were proposing, instead of seeking broad directions from the Court. The Court also indicated that it cannot assume the role of a policy-making authority and suggested that stakeholders must first undertake detailed groundwork before approaching the Court.

“We can only request stakeholders to examine proposed guidelines… we cannot do everything.”

Consequently, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The Petitioner to undertake further research and return with a more comprehensive petition, including suggested guidelines for consideration.