Stakeholders warn of chilling effect as SC eyes new online speech laws
As the apex court mulls boundaries for satire, comedy, and ‘offensive’ content online, India’s creators and legal experts call for nuance, not censorship, warning against a chilling effect on digital creativity.
ADVERTISEMENT
India’s digital expression landscape may be on the verge of a seismic shift. In back-to-back hearings this week, the Supreme Court of India signaled its intent to evolve a legal framework to govern free speech online, especially content that falls under satire, comedy, parody, and potentially offensive speech.
While the move stems from rising complaints and litigation over provocative content, stakeholders across law, policy, and the creator economy are cautioning that overregulation could stifle artistic freedom and public discourse.
The two matters before the court— one involving popular YouTubers like BeerBiceps and comedian Samay Raina, and the other concerning cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who was denied anticipatory bail over a Facebook post— have reignited India’s long-standing debate over the boundaries of expression in a digital-first democracy.
Between Expression and Overreach
The announcement has triggered a wave of responses from across the digital ecosystem.
“Both platforms and the state have failed at content moderation,” said Mishi Choudhary, executive director at SFLC.in and a noted digital rights advocate.
“Companies prioritize engagement and data; the state, narrative control. No wonder the courts are being forced to step in. But our democracy would benefit more from investment in education than social media outrage.”
Others warn that formalizing vague standards could backfire.
Rohit Kumar, Founding Partner at policy consultancy The Quantum Hub, argued that any new legal framework may unintentionally criminalize satire, dissent, or criticism, especially if it leans on ambiguous terms like “decency” or “morality.”
“Creating new speech laws is inherently dangerous,” Kumar said.
“Subjective restrictions are prone to misuse and can have a chilling effect, deterring people from speaking freely online. Instead, we should empower users, improve digital literacy, and strengthen moderation—not muzzle expression.”
Aruna Sharma, Former Secretary, MEITY, who believes the country doesn't need a formal framework to impose “reasonable restrictions” on freedom of speech and expression in the digital space, points out, "Satire, critique, comedy always have issues of concern of citizens, personalities as subject matter .
In good old days office staff and news papers about known personalities used to use combination of satire and comedy giving titles to their bosses ‘bura na mano holi hai’. A matured society should allow space to critique but should be based on facts than with intention to malign."
According to her, self regulation is the crux with boundaries defined to first fact check, use for creativity artisticin satire, poetry, writings for public good. The restriction not to be curbing voices against injustice or failure or pain points of any government in power.
A Legal Crossroads in the BNS Era
The move comes at a crucial moment, as India transitions from colonial-era penal laws to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. According to Harsh Kumar, advocate at Jotwani Associates, several BNS provisions—Sections 113, 115, 198, and 356—may directly impact creators by criminalizing content that is deemed to insult religion, spread enmity, or cause offense under loosely defined parameters.
“These provisions could be invoked against satire and comedy, especially when they touch upon sensitive themes,” Kumar said. “A judicial framework could help prevent arbitrary police action and misuse of these laws by introducing context- and intent-based standards.”
He cited the legacy of Section 66A of the IT Act, which was struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India in 2015 but continues to cast a shadow over digital speech due to overlapping laws and lack of clarity.
“We need updated, enforceable judicial guidance before satire becomes collateral damage in India’s free speech evolution,” he said.
Kumar added that pre-FIR judicial scrutiny, content-specific safeguards for satire, and training of police and magistrates could be key pillars of such a framework.
Creators Caught in the Crossfire
For India’s growing base of comedians, podcasters, and digital creators, the court’s intervention feels like a double-edged sword.
“Freedom of expression must remain free—but not free of accountability,” said Gaurav Dagaonkar, CEO of music licensing platform Hoopr.
He pointed to recent viral content, including parody renditions of popular songs, which blur lines between satire and copyright violation.
“A well-calibrated framework could help—not hurt—creators by setting standards for attribution, fair use, and ethical expression,” Dagaonkar noted.
“But if it overreaches, we risk dulling India’s creative voice.”
Niharika Karanjawala-Misra, Principal Associate at Karanjawala & Co., acknowledged the Court’s effort to find balance: “Freedom of speech has always been subject to reasonable restrictions. But with the internet amplifying hate, abuse, and misinformation, it is equally vital that any regulation is transparent, proportionate, and protects satire and artistic critique.”
She outlined five core principles for any future legal framework: clarity in language, protection for satire, judicial oversight, proportionality in enforcement, and accountability for platforms.
Artists Want Clarity, Not Control
Aryan Anurag, Co-founder of Binge Labs, said that the fear of overreach could drive self-censorship among independent creators who rely on bold, socially conscious storytelling.
“The danger is not just censorship, but creators watering down their message out of fear,” he said. “Satire and humor are critical tools of cultural critique. Let’s not lose them to vague speech laws.”
He emphasized that existing laws already provide enough grounds to act against genuinely harmful content. What’s needed is digital literacy, better enforcement, and a robust appeals system—not new speech curbs.
Anand Shiralkar, founder of AI-powered dubbing firm Rian, echoed this view, adding that context and intent must be central to any framework.
“We deal with satire across languages. Meaning changes with nuance. A word-by-word test won’t work. Any regulation must allow for cultural and linguistic sensitivity, and ensure due process,” he said.
As memes, reels, and YouTube commentary increasingly shape public discourse, the judiciary is being called to adjudicate between humor and harm. The challenge, say experts, lies in drawing a line that protects both artistic freedom and public harmony, without enabling vendettas, censorship, or legal harassment.
