New Delhi, September 23, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to social media platforms to identify, prevent, remove or block unlawful, provocative, hateful, abusive and misleading digital content, including fake news and material allegedly capable of affecting public order and communal harmony.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana granted petitioner Hitendra Kumar Parsottambhai Gadhiya the liberty to pursue alternative remedies.
“You can pursue your alternate remedies,” the Bench told the petitioner’s counsel while declining a request to tag the matter with another pending case concerning social media content.
The PIL, filed through advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, sought directions to the Centre, Delhi government and major social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X and WhatsApp, to take effective measures against unlawful digital content under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the rules framed under it.
The petitioner sought action against content described in the plea as “unlawful, provocative, hateful, abusive, derogatory, misleading and objectionable digital content”. The plea specifically referred to fake news, incendiary speeches and anti-national slogans.
It also sought appropriate action against individuals responsible for creating, uploading, circulating and disseminating content that is not protected by law. At the same time, the petition stressed that regulatory measures must remain consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2).
The petitioner claimed that the circulation of fake messages and provocative statements through social media platforms and SMS had contributed to disruptions of public order and communal harmony.
The plea further alleged that social media intermediaries had failed to comply with their statutory obligations under the Information Technology Act and associated rules by not removing or blocking certain content alleged to constitute prohibited speech.
The petitioner referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, including its observations concerning offences relating to promotion of enmity between groups on grounds of religion and deliberate or malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Relying on the judgment, the plea contended that social media platforms must comply with the legal framework governing unlawful content while also respecting constitutionally protected speech.
The petition also alleged that platforms including X, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp and Instagram had not taken adequate action against content containing anti-national slogans and statements concerning the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The petitioner sought directions requiring the concerned intermediaries to comply with their statutory obligations and take action, in accordance with law, against those responsible for creating and disseminating unlawful content.
FOLLOW NOW
