Digital Democracy and Media Ethics: Legal Dimensions of Free Speech and Expression in India

Digital Democracy and Media Ethics: Legal Dimensions of Free Speech and Expression in India

Ahmad Raza, Yasir Hussain

Dalian Maritime University, China

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000246

Received: 27 July 2025; Accepted: 04 August 2025; Published: 05 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Is freedom of speech and expression are the most essential and pervasive, yet frequently neglected, pillar of democracy? A thriving democracy enables individuals to express themselves through various mediums like spoken word, writing, visual content, and digital platforms. While Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to protect this right, its practical application in the digital era face new challenges. This paper examines the evolving relationship between constitutional free speech right and digital media ethics, particularly in light of AI-driven content moderation and the rapid spread of misinformation in India.

The study adopts a mixed-method approach, combining doctrinal legal analysis with empirical data collected through interviews and focus group discussions with media compliance officers and journalists. It aims to identify how ethical journalism can strike a balance between protecting individual expression and ensuring responsible digital communication. The findings highlight the dual nature of digital platforms as both enablers of democratic dialogue and carriers of hate speech, defamation, cyberbullying, and manipulated content.

The research underscores that the citizens may freely express opinions on topics such as politics, religion, and public affairs, this right is subject to reasonable limitations concerning public order and national security. It further analyzes judicial precedents and policy developments that have shaped the boundaries of permissible speech. Ultimately, the paper calls for stronger ethical standards, legal clarity, and public awareness to ensure that free expression in India remains both protected and responsibly exercised in an age of ai algorithmic regulation and mass digital engagement.

Keywords: Freedom of Speech in India, Article 19(1)(a) Constitution of India, Digital Media Ethics, AI Content Moderation, Information Technology Act 2000, Fake News and Misinformation, Media Regulation in India, Hate Speech Online, Free Speech and Democracy, Judicial Interpretation of Free Speech

INTRODUCTION 

Background & Importance  

The world is interconnected, and the circulation of ideas and information plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse and influencing policy. In context with this, the most important concept is freedom of speech and expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Article guarantees free speech as the foundation of democracy, enabling citizens to express their views and challenge injustice. In the Indian Constitution, this right is guaranteed to each and every citizen of the country. The right ensures that government institutions are held liable for their actions, facilitates public involvement in political affairs, and promotes the growth of a more spirited and engaging press. [1]. In today’s democratic environment, digital media platforms like social media, blogs, and news outlets significantly influence public dialogue. Even though there is no explicit mention of media within freedom of speech and expression, Indian courts have interpreted Article 19(1)(a) to include it within its scope. This protection extends to digital and print media, albeit with restrictions on national security, public order, and morality under Article 19(2). [3]. For the purpose of national security, restrictions allow control and regulation of public order, morality, and contempt of court. While these platforms foster free speech, they also present challenges such as the spread of misinformation. Even with the regulatory measures in place, the spread of misinformation remains one of the most important challenges in society. This right empowers the citizens of India to voice their opinions, views, and thoughts without any irrational intrusion. However, Article 19(2) asserts certain reasonable restrictions and limitations on this freedom with respect to integrity, sovereignty, public order, security, decency, morality, defamation, etc. Moreover, the concept of freedom of speech and expression has evolved with the introduction of social media, digital media, and digitally available content. [4].

The advent and proliferation of electronic media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter, and blogs have significantly expanded the avenues for exercising the right to free speech. These platforms not only facilitate civic engagement and governmental accountability but also introduce a complex array of challenges. Notably, issues such as disinformation, hate speech, online radicalization, and cyberbullying have emerged as critical threats to the constructive use of these media. The dissemination of fake news and manipulated content poses a serious risk of misappropriating the freedoms afforded under free speech. While media retains the potential to serve as a watchdog exposing corruption, highlighting injustices, and promoting governmental transparency it simultaneously plays a pivotal role in the advancement of human rights and social justice [2, 15]. Nevertheless, the exercise of free speech through media entails not only rights but also responsibilities. Media entities, especially digital platforms, must adhere to ethical standards, including verifying information and ensuring objectivity in reporting. Traditional media alongside digital media platforms carry a professional, righteous, and principled responsibility to promote transparency and accuracy in reporting, prevent the spreading of false and misleading content, and verify the authenticity of the facts before publication. Media outlets act as public trustees. When such entities act as carriers of fake news and political agendas and prioritise sensationalism for the purpose of magnifying and provoking the public over not-so-trivial and critical issues, they breach public trust. The intentional and negligent dissemination of false news can incite public violence and undermine democratic initiatives and campaigns.

The right to freedom of speech inherently includes the right to circulate ideas, a principle integral to both free speech and publication [6]. However, the dissemination of false or misleading information poses significant societal risks, particularly when such content influences public opinion or incites unrest. In this context, the representation of news and information must adhere to principles of fairness, impartiality, and independence from personal bias or political influence. Ethical journalism requires media outlets to approach sensitive subjects with a commitment to minimising harm and upholding the dignity of individuals involved [2, 15]. In recent years, instances of governmental censorship and political interference in traditional media have highlighted concerns regarding press autonomy. Such actions challenge the foundational tenets of media freedom and raise critical questions about the reliability and impartiality of journalism. These developments necessitate a re-examination of existing media ethics frameworks in light of contemporary challenges, particularly in an environment characterized by rapid news cycles, continuous digital engagement, and the increasing influence of both professional journalists and citizen reporters. What legal frameworks and protective safeguards are crucial in the digital age for navigation? This paper explores the critical role of freedom of speech in democracy, with a focus on its ethical implications in digital media. The evolving landscape of mixed news media demands a new set of mixed media ethics—principles that apply equally to amateurs and professionals, whether they blog, tweet, broadcast, or write for newspapers. By way of judicial precedents, statutory guidelines, legal frameworks, and ethical norms, the paper examines the critical interplay between freedom of speech and media ethics. Literature Review

LITERATURE REVIEW

Cyber offenses and electronic media in India are governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000. It also forms part of governing free speech. Guidelines for ethical broadcasting are made by supervising authorities like the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) and the Press Council of India. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, is another framework that regulates media censorship. People opine that the enforcement of these rules is influenced by politics, leading to bias and censored opinions. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, aim to provide a more rigid compliance procedure and address issues like accountability of platform providers, content removal, grievance redressal procedures, etc. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), was declared unconstitutional and was struck down in its entirety as being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2) since it was vague and broad. It dealt with granting punishment for sending offensive messages through communication devices, including computers and smartphones, etc., and made abusive online speech illegal. [5]. The section was criticized for being vaguely worded and granting excessive powers to the government to curb online speech. Article 19(1)(a) also sets a high threshold of reasonable restrictions enforced under Article 19(2).  In cases of suppression of speech, the pillars of democracy prioritize strong debates, protection of dissent, and judicial oversight. The IT Rules (Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021) of 2021 have introduced a new legal framework that makes it mandatory for social media platforms to establish a grievance redressal mechanism and appoint compliance officers. Platforms comply more with procedural and constitutional safeguards instead of ambiguous and broad demands. These rules shall help in tracing and finding the source of the problematic content. They also moderate the content on the social media platforms by balancing the legal compliance needs on social media and the free speech defense often used. A major percentage, 61%, of surveyed platform officers raised concerns of over-broad enforcement chilling dissent, and about 74% accepted the improvement in regulatory clarity after the introduction of IT Rules 2021.

AI technologies have played a bigger role in digital platform content moderation in recent years. On websites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, AI-based tools are used to identify offensive content, including hate speech, false information, and other types of inappropriate behavior. These tools give platforms an effective way to moderate user-generated content by processing and filtering vast amounts of data rapidly using machine learning algorithms. However, there are a number of obstacles that AI in content moderation must overcome, including algorithmic biases, context-understanding issues, and opaque decision-making processes. According to a 2024 study,[6] AI systems frequently misjudge sarcasm, cultural quirks, and conversational context, which results in unfair or erroneous moderation. This raises issues with false positives and excessive censorship, particularly when context is essential to deciphering the meaning of the content.Additionally, AI is being used more and more to combat online disinformation, particularly in politically delicate situations. In 2025,[7] a recent study examined the use of AI in elections to identify and combat false or misleading narratives, emphasizing the threats these narratives pose to political stability and public confidence. According to the study, artificial intelligence (AI) is good at spotting and thwarting some types of false information, but it struggles to keep up with the rapidity of fake news’s spread and the dynamic nature of disinformation campaigns.As platforms work to strike a balance between removing harmful content and preserving democratic values and expression, this brings up significant ethical issues regarding censorship and the suppression of free speech.

As AI continues to shape the media, people all over the world are talking about the moral issues that come up when AI is used to moderate content. The European Union set rules in 2024[8] to make sure that AI algorithms used by social media sites are open, fair, and accountable. These rules are all about finding a balance between protecting freedom of speech and doing a good job of moderating content. International groups like the United Nations have also called for countries to work together to regulate AI technologies in the media. They stress the importance of having ethical guidelines to stop bias, manipulation, and discrimination in algorithms.The Ethical Journalism Network (2024)[9] said in a report that AI systems should not only focus on removing content, but also on making sure that platform operators are responsible for the content that is shared. The report said that there should be clearer rules to make sure that algorithms follow media ethics by putting accuracy, fairness, and openness first in their choices. The report also talked about how AI can help make journalism more ethical, especially by making sure that content is checked before it is shared. This will help stop the spread of false information and protect the integrity of journalism.

The Indian courts have set forth numerous landmark judgments that significantly shape the freedom of speech and expression. The role of the judiciary has been influential in striking a balance between freedom of speech and media ethics. In the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court observed that freedom of speech and the press are the foundation stones of a democratic country. [10]. Without political discussion and less generic education, the functioning of the government is not possible smoothly. Freedom of speech and expression also includes the spread of ideas, which may be biased and manipulative. On the other pinnacle of the coin, these ideas and information can be true and gathered from a legitimate source. In this case, the circulation of a magazine was forbidden in some parts of Madras. It was held that freedom of speech and expression is valid only if there is a spread of ideas. In another landmark case, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972), the Supreme Court addressed the extent and scope of freedom of speech. This case revolved around the Newsprint Policy, 1972-73. The Supreme Court of India held that this policy was violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. [10,13]. In one of the latest instances in the country, the Mumbai Police filed an FIR against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra for defamation based on a complaint filed by Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel for allegedly making defamatory remarks against Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during a stand-up comedy show held in Mumbai. During a recent standup show in Mumbai, Kamra referred to Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as a “gaddar” (which means a traitor), hinting at Mr. Eknath Shinde’s 2022 political defection that led to a split in the Shiv Sena party. In response, Shiv Sena members vandalized the venue where Kamra’s show was held, and an FIR was filed against the comedian, accusing him of defamatory remarks and inciting public mischief. [14]. Another instance where popular stand-up comedian Samay Raina and other renowned digital media creators like Ranveer Allahbadia and Apoorva Mukhija have been making headlines over their India’s Got Latent controversy. These social media celebrities gained major limelight over their controversial and derogatory statements made on the show. Recently, Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia have been summoned to appear before the Maharashtra cyber cell. The two have been called by the officials to answer questions regarding the case. Ranveer and Apoorva Mukhija were heavily criticized for their ‘derogatory statements’ made on the show, and the two have reportedly been facing legal issues for lack of cooperation in the case as well.

Media ethics

Principles and responsibilities 

Media ethics are ethical rulings that act as checks and balances on the use of free speech and freedom of the press by the media and journalists. They serve the purpose of guidelines for the professional conduct of persons carrying out media as a career. However, these guidelines or media ethics are not merely ambitious, but they are also necessary to encourage and maintain public trust. Further legal duties and ethical standards direct the collection of information, its processing, and its presentation to serve the public interest. The increasing prevalence of digital media and social media platforms has launched newer and greater challenges, while traditional journalism is fading. There are not many safeguards and security measures, as well as authentic sources, offered by social media platforms and digital media, unlike traditional reporting. The responsibilities of professionals working in journalism and media have increased day by day to address the challenges of journalism. The main aim of these ethics is to examine the relationship between traditional journalism ethics and the upcoming standards of communication in digital aspects. Transparency establishes trust and confidence between journalists in digital media. [11].

Ethics are important in every profession, but they are especially important for people working in the media to maintain their role as the “fourth estate” in society. Just like all citizens, journalists are also bound by laws set by the government such as laws against defamation, contempt of court, and contempt of parliament to prevent misuse of their position. The principles of journalism guide how news should be collected and reported, while ethics are the moral values behind how that news is shared. Journalists need to follow certain rules in their work, which are often called “professional ethics.” These ethics aren’t forced, but each profession has its own ‘Code of Conduct’ a set of rules to encourage responsible behaviour. These ethical guidelines are unique to each profession and are meant to stop people from misusing their power. In India, many newspapers have created their codes of ethics for their staff to follow. [20]. Back then were the days when journalism was considered to be an idealistic and noble profession, and the pen’s mightiness over the sword was well maintained. Today, journalists as well as society have accepted that journalism is just another profession, and media organizations are considered money-printing business ventures competing with each other to gain fame and ratings. The rising popularity of electronic media and their diverted inclination towards the entertainment aspect have paved the way for a sort of unhealthy competition. Even in such scenarios, a few basic ethical considerations need to be kept in mind by the journalists. Effective and sound practice makes a clear distinction between news reports and expressions of thoughts and opinions.

News reports should be free from personal opinions or bias of any kind and should be transparent and balanced, with the demonstration of every side involved. Following are the core principles of ethical journalism, which include truth and accuracy, fairness and impartiality, humanity, independence, and accountability. There are a number of false claims that are raised regarding several issues, and the relevance of the same must be truthfully inspected. There may be overexaggeration of the same, which the viewers and audience may attribute erroneously. [20]. Evaluation of various information sources and checking the accuracy of the information before reporting are important aspects. An unbiased expert in the field of the issue being reported can be contacted as a source to check the facts. A journalist must know the difference between a fact and an opinion and must publish the same in a way to avoid any confusion among the audience. Reporting journalists must be free to voice their opinions and views without any censorship. They must act in a neutral and unbiased manner, neither formal nor informal. Their views, beliefs, and acts should not be influenced by political, corporate, or cultural interests. The ulterior motive of reporting an issue must be considered while it is being presented. Although it may be difficult for a person to be neutral all the time, journalists should try to be fair at all times. They shall not take sides and avoid disagreements. Every person shall be given a chance to present their opinion and speak what they want to voice. Emotional connections and personal feelings shall not get in the way of delivering news.

Enough background and history of the reported issue must be provided to the audience with the intention to understand the exact issue. Reporters and the organization must take responsibility and accountability for the news that is published by them. The impact and consequences of the news should not amount to being unethical. Failure to correct the mistakes can lead to the spread of fake news and misinformation that may hurt the people. The most vulnerable audience of fake news are the elderly and less educated people. The news published or broadcast by the journalists shall make an impact on the audience in a positive manner and should not affect them in such a way that the words, images, and videos portrayed negatively affect the lives of others. It should not be such that it is abusive or forbidden information that is being broadcasted. However, some news stories can divert the attention of the audience from the main issue and may even confuse the public. Fake news and misinformation spread on purpose can lead to manipulation of public opinions. This kind of manipulation is considered unethical since it overturns autonomy and informed consent. [17]. A civic dialogue that explains the ethical choices and processes to the audience about journalistic practices, coverage, and news content. The questions raised must be answered with accuracy, clarity, and fairness.

Conflict Bbetween Freedom of Speech and Media Ethics 

India is a land of varied cultures and opinions that explores the complicated relationship between media censorship and fundamental freedom of expression. The battle between these two has given birth to a number of debates that raise questions on the integrity of journalists. It is often advocated that the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021, are not just guidelines that only prevent the spread of misinformation but also promote online decency. [7].  There is a lot of uncertainty in defining phrases like “unlawful content,” “forbidden news,” etc. These can be taken down from digital platforms arbitrarily. In today’s world, where many people are unhappy with the media, it is very important for journalists to stay away from conflicts of interest. For example, most newspapers don’t allow journalists to write about their friends or family members. There may be rare exceptions, but only if the journalist clearly explains the relationship. If a reporter is looking for public opinion or expert views, they should avoid using relatives or close friends, unless they can honestly say their relationship won’t affect what they report. Reporters must ask themselves: Would they hold back criticism because they know the person? That’s why it’s safer to avoid using close connections in stories. Reputable news outlets also don’t allow journalists to go on free trips (called press junkets) paid for by the companies or groups they’re covering like movie studios or tech companies because it could affect their reporting. [15]. For example, in 2005, a newspaper fired two journalists for playing a drinking game while covering a story on college drinking. The editors believed this act hurt the paper’s reputation. Some media outlets, such as The New York Times, don’t allow their reporters to accept free tickets for events they are reviewing. However, other outlets allow press passes to movies, concerts, or plays. They also allow free review copies of books, CDs, and DVDs, and access to paid websites for review purposes. Good journalists should never pay sources for information, as it can make the information seem unreliable. They should also stay away from financial connections like owning shares or doing business with people or companies they report on. If a journalist donates money to a politician or political group, they should not cover related topics, as their fairness and neutrality may be questioned. Even though there exist certain regulatory mechanisms like the Information Technology Act, Intermediary Guidelines, Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, etc., the clashes between journalism and ethical responsibilities still arise.

Democracies are based on an informed citizenry. Electoral rumours and targeted disinformation campaigns can influence voter perception, reinforce polarisation, and undermine results, destabilising politics. During the global pandemic of Covid-19, there was a widespread of fake news among the people that spread like fire. The COVID-19 “infodemic” demonstrated how misinformation undermines adherence to public-health measures and amplifies disease transmission. Another example can be taken of the satire provoked by comedians like Kunal Kamra and Samay Raina. Earlier, an infamous show called the All-India Bakchod (AIB) Knockout roast from 2015 was also in the news since it sparked the controversy related to freedom of speech and expression in an episode featuring Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor [17]. However, the intricate balance of freedom of speech and expression and media ethics remains a complicated problem. There is a need to strike a balance between the two to recognise responsible journalism. Regulatory measures that are put forth by the legislators must not limit free speech or repress expression. The regulatory measures must be made in clear, unambiguous, and simple terms that act as precautions to safeguard the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Moreover, media literacy and critical thinking must be promoted among the people. The public must remain well aware of things to make out the difference between false and fake news and credible sources of information. [18].

Research Methodology and Data Analysis

For the purpose of giving a detailed grasp of how free speech is changing in the digital age in India, the study uses an empirical mixed-method research approach that combines qualitative methodologies. The qualitative doctrine studies the constitutional provisions, statutes, case laws, and other policy documents that govern free speech on platforms in India. On the other hand, the empirical method examines the surveys and interviews with media compliance officers, journalists, and digital media professionals experiences with IT Rules, 2021, to gain an understanding of how free speech, government regulation, and digital media ethics interact. The data from the interviews and focus-group discussions were analyzed using thematic analysis, which involved identifying key themes related to free speech, regulation, and media ethics. Each interview was coded, and the data was categorized to uncover patterns regarding the effects of IT Rules, 2021. A review of legislative provisions, case law, and regulatory directives on social and electronic media forms part of the descriptive part of the study.

The paper draws on a varied range of sources to analyse the framework of India’s free speech and moderation practices for platforms. It uses both primary and secondary sources for data collection to draw out comprehensive conclusions.   Primary legal documents like Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, have helped in the study. Landmark judgments like Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India traced the evolution of free speech and expression along with the reasonable restrictions. The analysis of these cases helped to ascertain how courts are influenced by the meaning of free speech in the digital age. Further, the secondary sources inform the doctrinal review, comprehensive scholarly articles on media ethics, freedom of speech and expression, and official reports published by the Press Council of India and the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority. The industry published white papers and surveys, including the survey of the compliance officer regarding the after-effects of IT Rules, 2021. The empirical part is based on evidence from semi‐structured interviews conducted with around fifteen compliance officers of top social‐media companies doing business in India and two focus‐group discussions (each with six to eight independent digital‐media reporters and content makers), thus incorporating institutional viewpoints as well as ground-level experiences.

CONCLUSION 

Freedom of speech and expression is not merely a legal privilege, but it is the foundation of a healthy democracy. While it’s important to have some limits and restrictions to prevent harm, too many restrictions can weaken the purpose of democracy. That’s why both the government and the people must work together to protect and use this freedom carefully so it empowers everyone, instead of causing conflict. According to the study’s results, the future of free speech in India will rely on whether we are able to find and maintain a balance between free speech and responsible behaviour. It is complex but crucial. The same could be achieved through promoting media literacy to help citizens critically evaluate the sources, investing in ethical modernization, flagging mechanisms and algorithmic transparency by tech platforms, and placing legal limits such as laws against defamation and hate speech, which should be enforced and crafted carefully to avoid suppression and censorship of the relevant public information. The preservation of democratic values, informed citizenship, and civil harmony depends not only on protecting free expression but also on using it ethically and responsibly.

The critical relation of freedom of speech and expression and media ethics is a significant part of any democracy. In the past, free speech has given people the power to voice their opinions, raise questions, and create awareness as well. It is a right fundamentally protected by the Constitution of India, and not just the Indian Constitution, but also the First Amendment of the US Constitution grants the people this right to express themselves. This right comes along with reasonable restrictions, which are also mentioned in the Constitution, however not explicitly. Media ethics, which are certainly not mentioned under a specific act or statutory legislation and are not always codified. Freedom of speech and media ethics go together side by side. Media ethics create a framework for freedom of speech and expression, but it is not utmost, absolute, or without any restrictions. It gives a certain pressure for social change and reforms and creates awareness among people. In the modern media world, there is constant rivalry between the organizations to present and broadcast news as early as possible. In this hurry, at times the news channel may publish and broadcast news that has no authentic source. This can lead to great miscommunication and the spread of fake news. Incidents of fake news were acted out as political propaganda to come into the picture and seek attention. The incidents of Kunal Kamra and Samay Raina display the lack of accountability of people to use free speech. Media that acts as a fourth pillar of democracy should not be misused to influence people in the negative direction. Public opinion matters, and media favors issues that can be overexaggerated and be eye-catching to the public. At times, this sensationalism may undermine the spirit of democracy. It is also important to foresee that unnecessary restrictions are not added to limit speech in the name of reasonable restrictions. Legitimate disagreements are healthy for a democracy to function, and every voice matters. The only way to work out is by maintaining a balance between free speech and media ethics instead of choosing one. This balance must be attained with the support of effective fact-checking, better journalism, and stronger rules. Legal restrictions that are imposed must be tailored to intentional hate speech or falsehood. Visual storytelling in the digital age governs superiority. The audience shows more interest in visual content, which is one of the leading ways of content consumption. Every journalist must know the art of storytelling in order to engage their audience and seek their attention. [13].

Eventually the aim is not to repress or suppress the opinions and voices but to ensure that whatever is said is said in a manner that no one is hurt. While free speech is encouraged along with ethical journalism for the growth of the society and awareness of the public. We live in a world where information travels faster than in earlier times, but the integrity and ethical basis of that information must be the top priority. Earlier journalism was limited to print newspapers, radio, television, etc., but now it is not restricted; it extends to digital social media platforms as well. The emergence of the digital age has altered the way news is consumed by the audience. Digital platforms gave an unlimited scope to journalists to spread news. Reinforcing freedom of speech, accountability, and responsibility can help media to fulfill its objective to voice the opinions of the people in a correct manner and strive for a balance between the two. It can also be claimed that India’s digital ecosystem presents a number of challenges to balance freedom of speech and reduce misinformation. In conclusion, the research paper emphasizes that the upcoming democratic media does not lie in confined and restricted free speech but rather in building up the ethical foundations to serve a larger public.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Constitution of India. (n.d.). Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. Retrieved from https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-19-protection-of-certain-rights-regarding-freedom-of-speech-etc/
2. Law eCommons. (n.d.). Faculty publications. Retrieved from https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs/580/
3. Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Bennett Coleman v. Union of India: Upholding freedom of the press in newsprint policy. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
4. BYJU’S. (n.d.). Freedom of speech. Retrieved from https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/freedom-of-speech/
5. rishti Judiciary. (n.d.). Freedom of speech & expression. Retrieved from https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-constitution-of-india/freedom-of-speech-&-expression
6. Saeidnia, H. R., Hosseini, E., Lund, B., Alipour Tehrani, M., Zaker, S., & Molaei, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence in the battle against disinformation and misinformation: A systematic review of challenges and approaches. Knowledge and Information Systems, 67, 3139–3158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-024-02337-7
7. Parto, M. (2025). Characterizing AI-generated misinformation on social media. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10266
8. De Lima Santos, M.-F., Yeung, W. N., & Dodds, T. (2024). Guiding the way: A comprehensive examination of AI guidelines in global media. AI & Society, 40, 2585–2603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01973-5
9. Gutiérrez-Caneda, B., Lindén, C.-G., & Vázquez-Herrero, J. (2024). Ethics and journalistic challenges in the age of artificial intelligence: Talking with professionals and experts. Frontiers in Communication, 9, Article 1465178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1465178
10. (n.d.). Constitutional law of India: Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Constitutional-Law-of-India/CHAPTER-8.htm
11. Reputation Today. (2021, June 18). Finding the equilibrium: Media censorship vs. freedom of expression in India. Retrieved from https://reputationtoday.in/finding-the-equilibrium-media-censorship-vs-freedom-of-expression-in india/#:~:text=Nevertheless%2C%20the%20delicate%20balance%20between,dissent%20and%20express%20diverse%20viewpoints
12. Society of Professional Journalists. (n.d.). SPJ code of ethics. Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/
13. (n.d.). Bennett Coleman v. Union of India: Upholding freedom of the press in newsprint policy. Retrieved from https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/bennett-coleman-v.-union-of-india:-upholding-freedom-of-the-press-in-newsprint-policy/view#:~:text=Summary%20of%20the%20Judgment,within%20the%20same%20ownership%20group
14. (n.d.). DJMC-01-Block-05. Retrieved from https://osou.ac.in/eresources/DJMC-01-Block-05.pdf
15. Global Freedom of Expression. (n.d.). Kunal Kamra v. Union of India. Retrieved from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/kunal-kamra-v-union-of-india/
16. Times of India. (2015, December 21). AIB Knockout roast: Celebrities react to the controversy. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/aib-knockout-roast-celebrities-react-to-the-controversy/photostory/46154740.cms?picid=46154805
17. International Journal of Research and Publications (IJRPR). (n.d.). Freedom of speech in India: A detailed study. Retrieved from https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE2/IJRPR38711.pdf
18. Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Bennett Coleman v. Union of India: Case Law. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
19. Law eCommons. (n.d.). Publications on constitutional law. Retrieved from https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1588&context=facpubs
20. Ethical Journalism Network. (n.d.). Who we are. Retrieved from https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/who-we-are
21. International Journal of Novel Research and Development (IJNRD). (n.d.). Freedom of expression and media responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2405629.pdf