Subaltern is not a static concept but a continuous and evolving arena of struggle. With the rise of the digital age, the struggle of the subalterns moved from offline to also the online platform. But as per the major question put forth by Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, do the subalterns have actually been able to speak for themselves truly and effectively? Therefore this paper will study how the concept of subaltern evolved from colonial to post colonial and then to the present digital era. By using the lens of Subaltern Studies, it recovers the marginalised voices erased by the elite colonial as well as the nationalist history, as propounded by Ranajit Guha in his work “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India” (1982). It revisits Gayatri Spivak’s critique which questioned the very recovery, representation and voice itself. It then moves to the post-colonial Indian context, where Ghanshyam Shah’s work on caste and untouchability highlights how inequalities still persist in rural India. Finally, the paper investigates contemporary forms of Subaltern resistance which ranges from grassroots Dalit and Adivasi movements to digital activism on social media. The paper questions whether these platforms resolve or reproduce the representational dilemma Spivak highlighted. Understanding subaltern digital activism through dissensus allows for a more nuanced study of how voice, visibility and power are negotiated in the twenty-first century. With the rising trend of social media, subalterns have also got a public platform to speak up, voice their opinions, raise critical questions and also distribute their own knowledge systems. Though from the face value it seems subalterns have finally got an equitable platform but issues like, algorithmic bias, co-optation, surveillance and online trolling again raise Spivak’s question of “Can the Subaltern Speak?”. This paper will examine whether these platforms actually serve as an equitable and just platform to them.