The Supreme Court of India is hearing Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, a key case on alleged government surveillance using Pegasus spyware. Pegasus can secretly access smartphones and was reportedly used to target journalists, politicians, and activists. Petitioners argue this violates privacy and free speech rights. The government denied wrongdoing, citing national security and existing surveillance laws. Finding its response inadequate, the Court set up an independent Technical Committee to investigate. The case raises questions on privacy, legality, and oversight, and its outcome will shape India’s digital rights and surveillance framework.
The Karnataka High Court witnessed a dramatic moment when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta demonstrated how easily fake verified social media accounts can be created, exposing digital vulnerabilities. The hearing stems from X Corp’s challenge to government takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. Mehta argued that anonymity enables misinformation and cited AI-generated content to show regulatory gaps beyond Section 69A’s scope. The court acknowledged the risks of anonymous misuse, referencing the Proton Mail case. The matter, balancing free speech and online accountability, will continue on July 25 and could reshape India’s digital regulation framework.
A Symbiosis law student from Kolkata was arrested in Gurgaon after posting a video on Instagram alleged to contain derogatory remarks against a religion. Though she deleted the video and issued an apology, she faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for promoting enmity and provoking breach of peace. The case raises key questions on the scope of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and its limits under Article 19(2). Courts must now decide whether her statement amounts to hate speech or falls within protected expression, a ruling that could influence future free speech jurisprudence.
On May 28, 2025, a Special MP/MLA Court in Mumbai rejected a plea seeking cancellation of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s bail in a defamation case over his remarks on freedom fighter V.D. Savarkar. The plea, filed by Savarkar’s grandnephew, alleged Gandhi was delaying the trial. Judge Amol Shinde found no evidence of intentional delay and said strict action was not justified. The case, based on Gandhi’s 2023 speech in the UK, continues under Section 500 IPC for defamation, with proceedings to follow the summons format allowing wider evidence. The trial will continue as scheduled.
