Briefly rephrased: The need arises for the Supreme Court to clarify the limits of free speech.

In the rapidly evolving digital age, the lack of regulation in social media platforms has become a pressing concern. Content moderation on these platforms is often inadequate, and the licence to speak without regard for societal norms and values, particularly in the unregulated social media environment, needs to be addressed.

This issue has been tested by the limits of free speech in the current age of social media. The need for defining the extent of free speech in Indian society has become urgent, especially after the Ranveer Allahbadia controversy sparked a debate on the need for digital content regulation.

Allahbadia, an Indian entrepreneur, YouTuber, and content creator known for his work in lifestyle and motivational content, found himself at the centre of a storm when he made distasteful comments as a guest on a television show, challenging freedom of speech. The bounds of decency were clearly breached by the individuals in question.

The top court has robustly condemned the views expressed by Allahbadia and a comedian on the show. Any comment aimed at a politician in power can lead to severe consequences, including arrests under various sections of the law. However, selective action against free speech in the public domain cannot be allowed to prevail.

The outrage against the removal of a cartoon featuring the Prime Minister in chains next to Donald Trump was acceptable, but the source of the outrage was problematic. The outrage came from politicians known for suppressing similar content, which raises questions about the selective application of free speech principles.

The top court's views on the parameters of obscenity and the bounds of decency could provide a starting point for defining the limits of free speech in Indian society. Society emphasizes disciplined behavior in appearance, clothing, speech, and the dissemination of ideas in public space. The balance between individual expression and the collective well-being of society should be considered when defining the limits of free speech.

Politicians who speak up for free speech when their opponents are targeted with calumny or satire often clamp down on similar disdain directed towards themselves. This double standard undermines the very principle of free speech. There is no absolute freedom of speech in any society that values its morals, traditions, and culture.

The Indian top court should take up the challenge of defining the limits of free speech. The removal of content deemed offensive or disrespectful is a complex issue, as it involves balancing individual rights with societal norms. The court's guidance on this matter could help in navigating this delicate balance and fostering a healthier digital environment.