Supreme Court approached over online content allegedly insulting Sanatan Dharma.
Plea seeks action against online content allegedly insulting Hindu religious beliefs.
- A PIL in the Supreme Court seeks blocking of online content allegedly insulting Sanatan Dharma and Hindu deities and disturbing communal harmony.
- The petitioner, Hitendra Kumar Parsottambhai Gadhiya, has named Union ministries, Delhi government and major social media platforms as respondents.
- The plea seeks a writ of mandamus to remove posts that incite against communal harmony, national integrity and judicial independence.
- It alleges platforms have failed to act against unlawful content under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and related rules.
- The matter relies on the Shreya Singhal judgment and is yet to be listed for hearing in the Supreme Court.
A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Centre and social media platforms to identify, remove and block online content allegedly insulting. The public interest litigation 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 (Facebook and Instagram), X Corp and WhatsApp respondents.
What the PIL seeks
“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,” the plea said.
Allegations against platforms
The PIL alleged that social media platforms have failed to adequately discharge their obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the rules framed thereunder by not acting against content that allegedly promotes enmity, hatred and public disorder. It further claimed that fake messages and provocative material circulated online have disturbed public order and communal harmony. The petition also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case and sought directions to intermediaries to comply with statutory obligations relating to unlawful online content.
In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case (decided on March 24, 2015), the top court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in its entirety. The court had ruled that the provision violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Context of similar cases
The PIL comes amid a series of court interventions over allegedly offensive content targeting Hindu deities on social media. In recent months, the Delhi High Court has directed platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Google/YouTube to remove or withhold posts and videos said to be derogatory towards Hindu gods and goddesses. In one instance, Google informed the court that it had withheld a YouTuber’s video in India after the government’s grievance appellate committee directed its removal. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that while freedom of speech is protected, it does not extend to content that incites hatred or insults religious sentiments in a manner that disturbs public order.