The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, 23 September 2026, refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought directions compelling major social media platforms to identify, prevent, remove, and block unlawful, provocative, hateful, and misleading digital content, including fake news and statements allegedly capable of threatening public order and communal harmony. The bench directed the petitioner to pursue alternative legal avenues instead.

What the Court Said

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana declined to admit the plea and granted the petitioner liberty to seek redress through other available remedies. 'You can pursue your alternate remedies,' the CJI-led bench told the petitioner's counsel, also declining to tag the PIL with a separate pending matter on social media content regulation.

What the PIL Sought

The petition was filed by Hitendra Kumar Parsottambhai Gadhiya, through advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, and named the Centre, the Delhi government, and major platforms — YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X, and WhatsApp — as respondents. It sought directions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder, asking platforms to take effective steps against content described as 'unlawful, provocative, hateful, abusive, derogatory, misleading and objectionable,' including incendiary speeches and anti-national slogans.

The petitioner also sought action against individuals responsible for creating, uploading, and circulating such content, while acknowledging that any regulatory intervention must be consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2).

Legal Framework Invoked

The petition leaned heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, particularly the court's observations on offences involving promotion of enmity between groups on grounds of religion and deliberate or malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. The petitioner argued that this judgment itself required social media intermediaries to comply with the legal framework governing unlawful content while respecting constitutionally protected speech.

The plea alleged that platforms including X, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, and Instagram had failed to fulfil their statutory obligations as intermediaries and had not removed or blocked content amounting to prohibited speech, despite an existing regulatory framework.

Context and Significance

This comes amid a broader, unresolved national debate on the regulation of online speech in India. Courts and regulators have repeatedly faced the tension between curbing genuinely harmful content and protecting free expression online. Notably, the Supreme Court's refusal to tag this plea with a pending social media matter suggests the bench was not persuaded that a fresh PIL was the appropriate vehicle for these concerns at this stage. The petitioner retains the option of approaching the relevant High Court or invoking other statutory mechanisms under the IT Act.