In urging the Union government to work onguidelines to regulate speech on social me-dia, the Supreme Court of India is seeking toempower an executive that is already weaponis-ing the legal limits on freedom of expression. Inresponse to a petition by a non-prot assailing de-rogatory remarks by online gures against dis-abled persons, the Court issued instructions thatfurther a problematic trend of the judiciary eg-ging on the state to encroach on legal grey areaswith statutory restrictions that undermine con-stitutionally guaranteed rights. To regard distas-teful humour, however disturbing it might be, asa problem to be solved through the courts and byexecutive rulemaking, is to fall into a deceptivetrap of imagined righteousness that progressivedemocracies should avoid. There are always un-pleasant consequences in expanding powers topolice speech: partisans wield their powers to fe-rociously monitor what is or is not appropriate,instrumentalising agencies of the state to sup-press art and political speech they do not like; ci-tizens nd themselves constantly looking overtheir shoulder before expressing themselves. Un-der the overbearing atmosphere of censored ex-pression, truths and ideas that must be reckonedwith for a functioning democracy are stied. Pe-ople should not have to constantly look againstasterisks that set terms and conditions for funda-mental liberties. Film producers and directorshave been pushed away from exploring subjectmatters that would help India progress socially,and journalists have been dealing with rst infor-mation reports for carrying out their professionalduties. In recent years, the Union government has,formally and informally, expanded its control ofonline speech, with the problematic InformationTechnology (Intermediary Guidelines and DigitalMedia Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and an amend-ment to those Rules that would allow social me-dia companies to be proceeded against for con-tent posted by users that has been agged by thegovernment. Monday’s instructions seem set toexpand those ambitions, which are themselvesunder challenge with the Supreme Court. Hatespeech and speech inciting violence against mi-norities are criminalised in India, giving disad-vantaged groups powerful avenues of recoursewhen they are legitimately wronged. Handing anexecutive, which already has a record of malade weaponisation of media and speech regula-tions, more powers would be dangerous in theextreme. At a fundamental level, such judicialpronouncements, which cite “misuse of freedomof speech” as a ground, seem to misperceive theframework of their institutional role: that of aprotector of rights under a clear constitutionalframework, and not of an unchallenged lord in afeudal society. In urging the Union government to work onguidelines to regulate speech on social me-dia, the Supreme Court of India is seeking toempower an executive that is already weaponis-ing the legal limits on freedom of expression. Inresponse to a petition by a non-prot assailing de-rogatory remarks by online gures against dis-abled persons, the Court issued instructions thatfurther a problematic trend of the judiciary eg-ging on the state to encroach on legal grey areaswith statutory restrictions that undermine con-stitutionally guaranteed rights. To regard distas-teful humour, however disturbing it might be, asa problem to be solved through the courts and byexecutive rulemaking, is to fall into a deceptivetrap of imagined righteousness that progressivedemocracies should avoid. There are always un-pleasant consequences in expanding powers topolice speech: partisans wield their powers to fe-rociously monitor what is or is not appropriate,instrumentalising agencies of the state to sup-press art and political speech they do not like; ci-tizens nd themselves constantly looking overtheir shoulder before expressing themselves. Un-der the overbearing atmosphere of censored ex-pression, truths and ideas that must be reckonedwith for a functioning democracy are stied. Pe-ople should not have to constantly look againstasterisks that set terms and conditions for funda-mental liberties. Film producers and directorshave been pushed away from exploring subjectmatters that would help India progress socially,and journalists have been dealing with rst infor-mation reports for carrying out their professionalduties. In recent years, the Union government has,formally and informally, expanded its control ofonline speech, with the problematic InformationTechnology (Intermediary Guidelines and DigitalMedia Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and an amend-ment to those Rules that would allow social me-dia companies to be proceeded against for con-tent posted by users that has been agged by thegovernment. Monday’s instructions seem set toexpand those ambitions, which are themselvesunder challenge with the Supreme Court. Hatespeech and speech inciting violence against mi-norities are criminalised in India, giving disad-vantaged groups powerful avenues of recoursewhen they are legitimately wronged. Handing anexecutive, which already has a record of malade weaponisation of media and speech regula-tions, more powers would be dangerous in theextreme. At a fundamental level, such judicialpronouncements, which cite “misuse of freedomof speech” as a ground, seem to misperceive theframework of their institutional role: that of aprotector of rights under a clear constitutionalframework, and not of an unchallenged lord in afeudal society. Submit