Sanatan Dharma, Hindu Deities: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Blocking Of Allegedly Hateful Social Media Content
Supreme Court PIL seeks action against social media content allegedly insulting Sanatan Dharma and Hindu deities
A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Centre and major social media platforms to identify, remove and block online content allegedly insulting Sanatan Dharma and Hindu deities and disturbing communal harmony.
The plea, filed by Gujarat-based social worker Hitendra Kumar Parsottambhai Gadhiya, has made the Union Ministries of Home Affairs and Electronics and Information Technology, the Delhi government, Google/YouTube, Meta Platforms, X Corp and WhatsApp respondents.
The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act against social media posts allegedly having the potential to incite the public, disturb communal harmony and national integrity, and undermine the authority of constitutional functionaries.
The plea states: “Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to block/remove the social media posts published on social media platforms which have a tendency to incite the general public against communal harmony, national integrity, and judicial independence, and to undermine the authority of constitutional functionaries through an uninformed mob.”
PIL seeks action against provocative online content
The petitioner has sought directions for the identification, prevention, removal or blocking of allegedly unlawful, provocative, hateful, abusive, derogatory and misleading digital content.
The categories of content referred to in the plea include fake news, incendiary speeches, anti-national slogans, videos, memes, manipulated material and abusive posts circulated through social media platforms.
According to the petitioner, such material allegedly insults, vilifies or promotes hatred against Hindu religious beliefs, Sanatan Dharma and revered Hindu deities.
The plea has alleged that social media intermediaries have failed to adequately discharge their statutory obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules framed thereunder by failing to act against content allegedly promoting enmity, hatred and public disorder.
The petitioner has claimed that the PIL has been filed in the interest of protecting communal harmony and ensuring compliance with statutory obligations governing unlawful digital content.
Plea relied on Shreya Singhal judgment
The petition also relies on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, decided on March 24, 2015.
In that case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in its entirety, holding that the provision violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner has relied upon the judgment while seeking directions concerning the obligations of intermediaries in relation to unlawful online content.
The PIL has alleged that fake messages and provocative material circulated through digital platforms have the potential to disturb public order and communal harmony.
The matter is yet to be listed for hearing before the Supreme Court.
[Inputs: PTI]