Search for a command to run...
In recent years, the question of who gets to be heard in digital spaces has become increasingly mediated by opaque algorithms and inconsistent content moderation practices. In India, the interplay between state regulation and private platform governance has created a regulatory vacuum that endangers the constitutional guarantee of free speech. This paper critically interrogates the emerging phenomenon of algorithmic suppression, particularly shadow banning, deplatforming, and AI-based moderation, through the lens of constitutional law and digital governance. Despite the Supreme Court’s expansive reading of Article 19(1) (a) in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, [i] the digital speech landscape today reflects a troubling contradiction: speech is not always directly censored by the state, but often invisibilized through platform policies operating without transparency, accountability, or procedural safeguards. [ii] The Information Technology Rules, 2021, particularly the amendments introducing a government-appointed Fact Check Unit, have only deepened concerns around state-influenced censorship. [iii] Legal scholars like Apar Gupta and Usha Ramanathan argue that such mechanisms erode the very foundation of constitutional democracy, shifting speech control from democratic institutions to private algorithmic infrastructure. [iv] This article builds on the work of Julie E. Cohen and Frank Pasquale to contextualise algorithmic gatekeeping as a structural threat to the public sphere, particularly in societies with majoritarian tendencies. [v] Drawing from global regulatory approaches—including the EU Digital Services Act and Santa Clara Principles—the paper critiques India’s lack of a coherent legal framework to regulate platform power, ensure algorithmic transparency, or provide remedies for digital erasure. From a student’s perspective, the argument is not merely doctrinal—it is normative: speech must remain visible to be free.