Published Jul 02, 2026 | 3:29 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 02, 2026 | 3:29 PM
The Constitution of India. (iStock.)
Synopsis: Political disagreement is indispensable to democracy. But the anonymity that digital platforms offer has emboldened many to believe that accountability no longer exists. This needs to be checked.
Few technological innovations have transformed democracy as profoundly as social media. It has democratised access to public discourse by giving every citizen, irrespective of social or economic background, the ability to speak, question authority, mobilise public opinion and participate in governance. What was once the exclusive domain of political parties, media houses and institutions has now become accessible to every individual with a smartphone.
This unprecedented democratisation of communication has undoubtedly strengthened Indian democracy. Governments are more accountable than ever before. Public grievances reach decision-makers instantly. Social movements gain momentum without geographical barriers. Citizens can directly engage with elected representatives. In many respects, social media has become the new public square.
Yet every powerful instrument carries within it the possibility of misuse. Across democracies, digital platforms have increasingly become vehicles for misinformation, organised abuse, cyber harassment and political polarisation. India is no exception. The challenge before us today is not whether freedom of expression should be protected. That debate was settled long ago by our Constitution. The real question is whether we can preserve freedom without allowing it to degenerate into lawlessness.
Our Constitution answers this question with remarkable clarity.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It is among the cornerstones of India’s constitutional democracy.
However, the framers of the Constitution, led by Dr BR Ambedkar, also recognised that liberty without responsibility could ultimately weaken democracy itself. Accordingly, Article 19(2) authorises only narrowly tailored and reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, national security, public order, decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court and incitement to offences. These limitations are not exceptions to democracy; they are safeguards that enable democracy to function.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed this constitutional balance. In the landmark ‘Shreya Singhal v. Union of India’ judgment, the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act because vague restrictions could have a chilling effect on legitimate speech. At the same time, the Court made an equally significant observation: constitutional protection extends to discussion and advocacy, but not to speech that amounts to unlawful incitement or falls within the specific restrictions permitted under Article 19(2).
This distinction has become increasingly relevant in the age of social media. Criticising governments is not merely permissible; it is indispensable to democracy. Citizens must have the freedom to question public policies, expose administrative failures, challenge elected representatives and express disagreement without fear. Democracies do not grow stronger by suppressing criticism; they mature by responding to it with accountability.
However, constitutional freedom cannot be confused with personal licence. Targeting women with obscene language, circulating morphed photographs, spreading fabricated allegations, threatening individuals, organising online intimidation campaigns or dragging family members into political battles cannot be defended as democratic dissent. These are not exercises of constitutional liberty. They constitute forms of digital violence that undermine both individual dignity and the quality of democratic discourse.
Also Read | ‘Magnifica Humanitas’: What the Pope’s AI Encyclical means for India
‘Freedom of speech is not freedom to abuse’
Unfortunately, Andhra Pradesh has witnessed an increasingly disturbing trend in this direction. A section of political discourse on social media has shifted away from policy debates towards systematic personal attacks. Following the 2024 Assembly elections, the political atmosphere has become more confrontational, with social media often serving as the principal battlefield. Rather than contesting ideas, anonymous digital networks have frequently resorted to character assassination, abusive trolling and coordinated misinformation campaigns.
Among the most distressing features of this phenomenon is the deliberate targeting of women who have no direct role in political competition. Mothers, wives, daughters and sisters of political leaders are routinely subjected to vulgar abuse simply because of their association with public life. No democracy that claims to respect constitutional values can remain indifferent to such degradation.
Political disagreement is legitimate. Dehumanisation is not. The anonymity offered by digital platforms has emboldened many to believe that accountability no longer exists. Fake identities, anonymous handles and coordinated online ecosystems have made it easier to manufacture narratives than to engage with facts. The damage caused by such campaigns often extends beyond politics. Reputations are destroyed within hours. Families undergo immense emotional trauma. Young people witnessing this discourse begin to mistake abuse for political participation.
This erosion of civic culture should concern every citizen, irrespective of political affiliation. It is in this context that the recent observation by Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan assumes considerable significance: “Freedom of speech is not freedom to abuse.” This is not merely a political slogan. It is a constitutional principle. A democratic society must protect criticism of governments. It must equally protect the dignity of individuals. The Constitution does not require us to choose between liberty and responsibility. It demands that both coexist.
Also Read: No, India’s ‘great’ Global Capability Centres aren’t transformational yet
The responsibility of the State is therefore twofold.
First, it must never suppress genuine criticism or dissent merely because it is uncomfortable. Second, it must ensure that organised cyber harassment, criminal intimidation, gender-based abuse, identity manipulation and deliberate misinformation are addressed firmly within the framework of law. The Coalition Government in Andhra Pradesh has repeatedly stated that criticism of its policies is welcome. Governments exist to be questioned. Public debate strengthens governance. However, abuse masquerading as dissent cannot become the accepted norm of political engagement.
The initiative undertaken by the office of the Deputy Chief Minister to establish a dedicated mechanism for receiving complaints relating to social media harassment is a constructive institutional response. Citizens who face online abuse, particularly women subjected to targeted campaigns, deserve accessible legal remedies. Digital evidence such as screenshots, links and videos can facilitate prompt investigation and lawful action wherever offences are made out.
India’s legal architecture has also evolved to respond to new forms of cybercrime. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and relevant provisions governing electronic communications provide investigating agencies with legal tools to deal with cyber harassment, criminal intimidation, identity theft, publication of obscene material and other online offences. The challenge today lies less in the absence of laws than in ensuring timely enforcement, technological capacity and institutional coordination.
The debate before us is therefore much larger than partisan politics. It concerns the future of India’s digital democracy. If social media becomes a platform where abuse consistently overwhelms dialogue, misinformation eclipses facts and intimidation replaces debate, democratic institutions themselves will gradually suffer. Democracies are sustained not merely by elections but by the quality of public conversation between elections. India’s constitutional vision never imagined freedom as an absolute right detached from civic responsibility. Liberty flourishes only when accompanied by restraint, respect and accountability.
As citizens, we must continue to question governments, challenge public policy, expose corruption, scrutinise those in power and participate fearlessly in democratic debate. But we must do so without sacrificing civility, constitutional morality or respect for the dignity of fellow citizens. Words have consequences. Digital speech leaves permanent footprints. Every abusive post contributes to the erosion of public trust; every responsible expression strengthens democracy. Freedom of speech remains one of the greatest achievements of the Indian Republic. Preserving that freedom requires not only defending the right to speak but also cultivating the wisdom to speak responsibly.
The future of India’s democracy will ultimately be shaped not by how loudly we speak, but by how responsibly we choose to exercise the freedoms that our Constitution has entrusted to us.
Also Read | What AI can’t teach: The power of serendipity in learning
Lingamaneni Ramesh is a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha).
