Freedom Of Speech Cannot Trample On Dignity: Delhi High Court Cautions Social Media Users
The High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to an actor accused of posting obscene and threatening remarks against a YouTuber’s family, observed that when speech crosses into insult or humiliation, it infringes the right to dignity.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, Delhi High Court
Granting anticipatory bail to an actor accused of making obscene and abusive remarks against a YouTuber’s family, the Delhi High Court emphasised that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and must operate within the limits of reasonable restriction it places.
The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with an FIR registered under Section 79 of the BNS, 2023 (previously Section 509 IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at the Cyber Police Station, Delhi.
A Bench comprising Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while cautioning social media users, remarked: “The freedom of ‘speech’ and ‘expression’ granted by the Constitution under Article 19 must be exercised within the bounds of the reasonable restrictions it places. When the speech crosses the line into insult, humiliation or incitement, it collides with the right to dignity. The free speech should therefore not trample on the dignity and vice versa.”
Advocate Khalid Akhtar appeared for the petitioner, while Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP, represented the State.
Background
The FIR stemmed from a complaint filed by the mother of a popular YouTube content creator, alleging that the petitioner had made sexually explicit and offensive remarks against her and her daughter in a reaction video uploaded on social media. It was alleged that the video followed a parody post uploaded by the complainant’s son, after which the petitioner allegedly issued threats in a subsequent post.
A notice was served under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner’s father, calling for cooperation in the investigation. The petitioner approached the High Court after his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial court on the grounds of non-cooperation and recovery of digital devices.
The petitioner, however, contended that his digital devices had already been seized by the Borivali Police, Mumbai, in connection with an FIR registered over another matter and that the Bombay High Court had granted him protection from arrest in that case. He argued that he was cooperating with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The prosecution, on the other hand, opposed the application, alleging deliberate evasion and asserting that the petitioner’s conduct and statements promoted online abuse, necessitating custodial examination.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, upon hearing the matter, observed that “both the petitioner and the son of the complainant are social medial influencers, having large set of audiences”, and therefore bore greater responsibility in their use of online platforms.
The Bench noted that once objectionable content is uploaded on the internet, it tends to remain in circulation, advising that “one should cautiously use social media before posting any content, as it might adversely affect” the users who consume that content.
Further, while observing that “every content on the internet must be uploaded with great caution”, the Bench cautioned social media users that “the freedom of ‘speech’ and ‘expression’ granted by the Constitution under Article 19 must be exercised within the bounds of the reasonable restrictions it places”.
In the matter at hand, the Court found that the petitioner’s devices were already in lawful custody with the Mumbai Police, and therefore, no recovery was needed. It was also noted that the petitioner's presence was not required for any custodial investigation.
Reiterating the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court observed that the maximum punishment under the alleged offences was three years’ imprisonment, and no material had been produced to suggest that the petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence.
Conclusion
Allowing the anticipatory bail application, the Delhi High Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
The Court further directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Investigating Officer when called, surrender his passport, and not leave the country without permission. He was also directed to provide his voice samples if required and to inform the authorities about any change in address or contact details.
The application was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: Ajaz Khan v. The State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8962)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Khalid Akhtar, Bilal Khan, Shadan, Ahteshanuddin.
Respondent: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
