Can Social Media Insults Be Restricted to Protect Individual Dignity? Delhi High Court Answers

The rapid expansion of social media has revolutionised communication, offering a democratic platform for free expression. Yet, the very openness that empowers users has also enabled digital spaces to become breeding grounds for abuse, humiliation, and personal attacks.

In a recent and notable judgment, the Delhi High Court in Ajaz Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (BAIL APPLN. 3126/2025) examined whether social media expressions that cross into insult or humiliation could be curbed to protect individual dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

While deciding on an anticipatory bail plea filed by actor and influencer Ajaz Khan, accused of making sexually explicit and insulting comments about another influencer’s family, the Court used the occasion to deliver a broader commentary on the responsibility of social media users and the constitutional balance between free speech and dignity.

Factual Background

The controversy began when YouTuber Harsh Beniwal, known for his comic sketches, posted a parody video titled “A Day With Najayaz Bhai”, with a disclaimer stating that it was a work of fiction. The petitioner, Ajaz Khan, an actor and social media personality with millions of followers, took offence and responded through a “reaction video.”

In this video, Khan allegedly made sexually explicit and derogatory remarks about Beniwal’s mother and sister. The video quickly went viral before being taken down, sparking outrage and prompting the filing of FIR No. 41/2025 under:

• Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – equivalent to Section 509 IPC, relating to words or gestures intended to insult the modesty of a woman, and
• Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, penalises the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form.

The police issued notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 41A CrPC), directing Khan to appear for investigation. When he failed to comply, citing medical emergencies and overlapping obligations in another criminal case in Mumbai, his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the trial court. Khan then approached the Delhi High Court.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner argued that his video was a reaction born out of provocation, as the original parody used derogatory references like “drug peddler” and “molester.” His counsel contended that:

• The matter was one of free speech and satire, not criminal intent.
• His digital devices had already been surrendered to the Mumbai Police in another case, leaving no need for custodial interrogation.

He was willing to cooperate fully, provide voice samples, and abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

The evidence was documentary and digital in nature, making an arrest unnecessary under the principle of “bail, not jail.”

State’s Submissions

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, emphasising that:

• The petitioner had ignored lawful notices and displayed non-cooperation.
• As an influencer with a vast digital following, he wielded substantial power to influence public opinion and could intimidate witnesses.
• The case had serious societal implications, being linked to online gender-based abuse and the protection of women’s dignity in digital spaces.
• Such conduct warranted a firm legal response to deter similar misuse of social media.

Court’s Observations

Justice Ravinder Dudeja’s detailed order not only addressed the technicalities of anticipatory bail but also provided a philosophical reflection on the responsibility attached to digital expression.

1. Custodial Interrogation Not Required

The Court noted that the petitioner’s devices had already been seized by the Mumbai Police. Hence, no further recovery was necessary. Moreover, since the offences carried a maximum sentence of three years, and the petitioner was not a flight risk, custodial interrogation was unwarranted.

2. Principle of “Bail, Not Jail”

The Court reaffirmed the principle that arrest should not be mechanical and liberty must not be curtailed unless strictly necessary. The apprehension of non-cooperation could not, by itself, justify detention.

3. Bail Conditions

Granting anticipatory bail, the Court directed the petitioner to:

• Cooperate with the investigation,
• Surrender his passport,
• Provide his voice samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
• Keep his contact information updated, and
• Surrender his phone once returned from the Mumbai Police

Court’s Warning: When Free Speech Crosses the Line

The most significant part of the judgment lies in paragraph 13, where the Court drew a constitutional boundary between freedom of expression and human dignity. Justice Dudeja cautioned:

“When speech crosses the line into insult, humiliation or incitement, it collides with the right to dignity. The free speech should therefore not trample on the dignity and vice versa.”

This observation transforms the case from a mere bail dispute into a landmark commentary on digital responsibility.

Social Media Responsibility and the Digital Public Sphere

The judgment’s cautionary note highlights the evolving judicial understanding of social media accountability. Justice Dudeja’s remarks reveal deep concern over the unchecked influence of content creators and influencers:

“The internet has brought a large audience of every age group. Every content must be uploaded with great caution, especially when the uploader has a large audience and exercises influence in the society.”

The Court thereby reinforced that influencers have an amplified duty of care — their reach magnifies both the impact of expression and the potential for harm.

Conclusion

Delhi High Court’s decision in Ajaz Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi) strikes a nuanced balance — affirming liberty while upholding responsibility. It reiterates that constitutional freedoms are not a shield for humiliation, especially when exercised through powerful platforms that can magnify harm.

Justice Dudeja aptly encapsulates a timeless constitutional principle for the digital era — that free speech must not trample upon dignity, nor should dignity suffocate free speech.

In essence, the judgment calls for a culture of responsible digital citizenship, where freedom of expression and human dignity coexist harmoniously, ensuring that the constitutional promise of liberty remains not only free but also humane.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams