In the 2002 Hollywood movie Minority Report, the state, gripped by the fear of disorder, does not wait for crime to occur. It anticipates, judges, and punishes before an offence is even committed. One might find it a cinematic exaggeration. However, that is how most governments across the world react today in the absence of clear regulations. Where the law is silent, the state does not remain neutral. It rather compensates for uncertainty with force. This impulse is ancient, rooted in the belief that ambiguity breeds chaos, and that the only way to ensure order is to crush the possibility of transgression before it emerges.
But in doing so, the state reveals a deeper anxiety. It does not fear crime itself as much as it fears its own inability to control. The judiciary, too, when confronted with regulatory gaps, rarely resists the temptation to fill them with its own expansive interpretations, ensuring that the unknown is met with preemptive discipline rather than measured deliberation. In many ways, the absence of law does not create a vacuum; rather, it creates an overreaction, an impulse to discipline before an offence is even defined.
Ambiguity As A Weapon
This phenomenon pervades democratic societies, where law is meant to serve as a rational framework rather than an instrument of fear. The philosopher Giorgio Agamben, in State of Exception, argues that sovereign power thrives in moments of crisis using ambiguity as a pretext to expand its reach. When regulations are unclear, the state does not seek clarity, it asserts control. This is why states often invoke undefined or archaic laws to punish behaviours that fall outside their comprehension.
The recent Ranveer Allahbadia-Samay Raina episode exemplifies this pathology. What Allahbadia said was deplorable. But it doesn't mean that it can be classified as a crime. Following the remarks, multiple FIRs were filed against Ranveer and Samay in states like Assam and Maharashtra, citing charges of promoting obscenity. Seeking relief, Allahbadia approached the Supreme Court, which granted interim protection from arrest but imposed conditions, including surrendering his passport and a temporary ban—now revoked— on posting new content.
Chain Reaction
The Supreme Court delivered a scathing rebuke to Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina over their comments. Justice Surya Kant condemned Allahbadia's remarks as “something very dirty in his mind which has been vomited”. The court criticised their conduct, stating that “such behaviour has to be condemned” and that “just because you are popular, you cannot take society for granted”. It further reprimanded Allahbadia, asserting that “the words you have chosen—parents will be ashamed, sisters will be ashamed. The entire society will feel ashamed. The perverted mind.” Rejecting arguments that he was facing threats, the court dismissed his plea, remarking, “If you can seek cheap publicity by using abusive language, this person (who has threatened the petitioner) extending the threat is also seeking publicity.”
The Bench stressed that freedom of speech is not a license to disregard societal norms, warning that content creators must be held accountable. The National Commission for Women (NCW) had also summoned Allahbadia and Raina, demanding an explanation for the offensive content. As the case escalated into a national controversy, Parliament debated the need for stricter regulations on digital content, calling for more oversight and accountability in the digital space. Despite its harsh reprimand, the Supreme Court granted limited relief, prohibiting further FIRs related to the episode but ordering Allahbadia to submit his passport, preventing him from leaving the country without permission.
Moralistic Verdict?
However, though offensive speech can and should be criticised, the court's language appears moralistic rather than legalistic, venturing into vague and personal condemnation rather than a clear, principle-based adjudication. The court framed the issue in terms of societal shame and morality. This again creates a dangerous precedent wherein judicial rulings are based on subjective moral standards rather than constitutional principles of free speech, due process, and proportionality. Furthermore, the ruling that “no one has a license to speak whatever they want” contradicts established free speech jurisprudence, which allows broad latitude for expression unless it directly violates reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Instead of engaging in moral policing, the court should have focused on clear legal principles such as the boundaries of obscenity, harm, and incitement, ensuring that the rule of law, rather than subjective morality, dictates judicial decisions.
The action by state governments and judiciary reflects an older tradition in legal and political thought: the fear of unregulated spaces. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, warned that without the absolute authority of a sovereign, society would descend into chaos, a war of all against all. But what Hobbes underestimated was that excessive control, too, can be a form of anarchy—anarchy of unchecked state power that disregards due process in the name of stability. The absence of regulation should, in theory, allow for the organic evolution of norms. However, in some cases, it ends up inviting a more regressive instinct of the state.
Don't Let Emotions Shape Regulations
Thus, there is a need for regulations to check that such ambiguities are addressed. When emotions run high, there is a tendency to introduce regulations that are restrictive. It is crucial to adopt a soft-touch regulatory approach rather than overly restrictive measures that may stifle free speech and innovation. A balanced framework can ensure that offensive and harmful content is addressed effectively while avoiding excessive censorship or regulatory overreach.
Here are a few recommendations that emphasise moderation, transparency, and platform responsibility without being overly punitive.
Instead of strict criminal liability, a graduated approach should be adopted where platforms are encouraged to comply through incentives rather than excessive penalties. Platforms should be required to implement content moderation but retain some level of intermediary protection if they comply with established best practices. Encouraging self-regulation with periodic compliance reporting, rather than blanket government controls, can ensure a balanced regulatory framework.
Platforms should also be required to establish clear content policies that align with existing Indian laws (e.g., IT Rules, IPC provisions on obscenity, and defamation laws). Content takedown mechanisms should be transparent, predictable, and reviewable, allowing users to appeal moderation decisions through an independent, platform-led review process. Instead of direct government control, self-regulation through industry bodies, similar to the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) for TV channels, can be a more effective alternative.
A non-intrusive, industry-driven regulator should be established, modelled after Ofcom (UK) or Australia's eSafety Commissioner. This regulator's primary role should be monitoring content moderation trends without direct intervention, facilitating voluntary compliance rather than strict censorship measures, and offering mediation and advisory services to resolve disputes between platforms, users, and regulators. Such a body should not have direct enforcement powers but should work as a mediator between platforms and government authorities.
A soft-touch approach ensures that content regulation is balanced, practical, and minimally invasive. Rather than strict laws that may discourage free expression, encouraging voluntary compliance, self-regulation, and transparent accountability measures will help create a more responsible digital ecosystem without compromising freedom of speech or creative expression.
(Aditya Sinha is a public policy professional.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
