Don't Overestimate Judiciary, We Aren't Panacea For Everything: SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Stricter Social Media Regulations

The Supreme Court, while refusing to entertain a petition seeking directions for the removal of social media content, has remarked that the judiciary is not a "panacea" for complex policy issues. 

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation petition, filed by one Abhay Pandey, seeking stricter regulations for social media content. The Bench emphasized that while unregulated digital content is a "serious issue," any fix must carefully balance the right to privacy against the freedom of speech and expression.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi refused to entertain the plea and disposed of the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to refile after further research.

The advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted, "This petition has been filed for some direction for removal of social media content."

Chief Justice Kant said, "People are challenging that Act (IT Rules) also, because for them, liberty is very very precious. Maybe right also. You are saying that now more regulations are needed. Why don't you tell what should be the regulation?...You are asking us, as we are the panacea of everything. Please don't over estimate the judiciary. We are not experts. We don't know so many things."

Advocate submitted, "This is a serious issue."

Justice Kant then added, "Issue is very serious. But then, you suggest such a regulation which may contain the right of freedom of speech, freedom of expression. That may create problem. We can't do that. At the same time, you may say it is so open that it is violating others' rights, right to privacy. Therefore, what should be that balance? People have grievances against a statute which purportedly tries to bring that balance. We are not happy with that also. We will examine that. Now, you want a complete extreme position."

It was remarked, "Do some homework, file a petition along with the suggested guidelines. We don't know anything. We can request the stakeholders. These guidelines have been suggested by someone. She has done hard work. Please examine them. Are they worth considering? We can only do that. So, you would draw with the liberty to file a petition."

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Recently, the Supreme Court refused to stay the Bombay High Court’s judgment that invalidated the Centre’s power to establish Fact-Check Units (FCUs). The Court issued notice in the Union's plea challenging the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, which delivered a split verdict on petitions seeking to strike down Rules 3(i)(II)(A) & (C) of the IT Amendment Rules, 2023. The impugned provisions allow the Central Government to establish a Fact Checking Unit (FCU) to identify any 'fake, false or misleading' information about its business on social media platforms.

After this judgment, the High Court's 'third judge' opined that, Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as amended in 2023 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

The validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as amended in 2023 was the subject matter of challenge in the batch of writ petitions. The proceedings were decided by the Division Bench of the High Court which had struck down the amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Rules of 2021 as being ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, and also being in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Cause Title: Abhay Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 277/2026]