Supreme Court Round-Up 2025: Free Speech

In 2025, the Supreme Court handled significant cases dealing with free speech. From poetry and political dissent to Wikipedia entries, online comedy, social media commentary and cinema, the Court was repeatedly required to navigate the fraught boundary between liberty and regulation. When poetry was criminalised - Imran Pratapgarhi caseOne of the clearest affirmations of free speech came in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362). The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered against Congress MP Imran Pratapgadhi over an Instagram post featuring the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”.A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that no offence was disclosed and underscored that courts and the police are constitutionally obligated to protect freedom of expression, particularly when the speech is unpopular. The Court cautioned that offences such as promoting enmity cannot be assessed through the lens of fragile sensibilities or a tendency to view criticism as a threat. The ruling reinforced that judges must act as guardians of free speech even when they personally disagree with the content.The Court held that for an offence under section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleged on the basis of written or spoken words, the standard to judge effect of the words should be that of a reasonable, firm, individual rather than an insecure person.“When an offence under section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have a sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position," Justice Oka wrote in the judgment.Wikipedia- ANI casesFree speech in the digital and informational ecosystem featured prominently in disputes involving Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and ANI Media Private Limited.In Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 465), the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court injunction directing the removal of allegedly defamatory content from ANI's Wikipedia page, holding that the order was impermissibly broad and unworkable. While allowing ANI to seek narrowly tailored relief for specific content, the Court cautioned against sweeping prior restraints.In a subsequent ruling arising out of the same litigation (Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 550), the Supreme Court set aside a order passed by the Delhi High Court in contempt proceedings for deletion of a wikipedia page. The Supreme Court emphasised that it is not the judiciary's role to instruct the media on what to take down. Reiterating that courts are open public institutions, the Bench held that even sub judice matters may be debated by the public and the press.The judgement by a bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Bhuyan(author) observed that both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy and must complement each other for a liberal constitutional order to survive. The ruling strongly endorsed public discourse, media scrutiny and even critical commentary as essential democratic functions.India's Got Latent case - Boundaries of comedyThe most publicly visible free speech controversy of the year arose from proceedings involving YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, following remarks made on the comedy show 'India's Got Latent' hosted by Samay Raina. The joke, containing incestuous themes, led to multiple FIRs across States and political condemnation, including threats of action by state authorities.While a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh granted Allahbadia protection from further FIRs, it also delivered a scathing oral reprimand, describing the remarks as deeply offensive and reflective of a perverted mindset. Relief was accompanied by stringent conditions, including surrender of passport, travel restrictions, cooperation with investigations and a temporary bar on posting online content.Beyond the individual case, the proceedings assumed wider regulatory significance. The Court repeatedly urged the Union Government to frame effective regulations to curb vulgar, obscene and offensive content on social media platforms. The Bench openly questioned whether unregulated digital content could continue to claim absolute protection under the rubric of free speech.The Court also took specific note of derogatory humour and jokes targeting persons with disabilities, expressing concern over the normalisation of such content in online entertainment. In oral observations, the Bench remarked that the model of self-regulation by digital media had failed and that there was a pressing need for an independent, autonomous regulatory body to oversee online content, distinct...

Supreme Court Round-Up 2025: Free Speech

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags