The proliferation of social media has fundamentally altered the architecture of public discourse in India, simultaneously amplifying the reach of constitutionally protected speech and creating new mechanisms of suppression that existing Article 19 doctrine was not designed to address. This article argues that Indian free speech jurisprudence remains trapped in a dyadic state-speaker model that obscures the three-layer governance structure through which expression is now controlled: state regulation, platform compliance architecture, and algorithmic distribution. Drawing on Jack Balkin’s theory of “new-school” speech regulation and Michael Mann’s concept of infrastructural power, the article examines how judicial protections established in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) and Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) have been systematically undermined by institutional design failures at each governance layer. Through doctrinal analysis of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000, BNS Section 356, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, as amended in February 2026, the article identifies three structural pathologies: constitutional risk transfer from criminal to administrative censorship, compliance cascades in platform moderation, and visibility suppression through algorithmic downranking. The article proposes layer-specific constitutional remedies calibrated to each governance mechanism, arguing that meaningful implementation of Article 19(1)(a) in digital environments requires structural accountability extending beyond the state to encompass the private infrastructure of speech circulation.