In a recent hearing concerning controversial online content created by comedian Samay Raina and podcast host Ranveer Allahbadia (“BeerBiceps”), the Supreme Court of India indicated that regulatory safeguards may soon be required to protect vulnerable communities and ensure responsible digital expression.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard a series of petitions involving alleged obscene content and material derogatory to persons with disabilities.
Online Obscenity and Age Verification Mechanisms
During the proceedings, the Bench observed that while warnings for adult or sensitive content are routinely displayed, they are often inadequate.
The Court proposed a layered approach, including Aadhaar-linked age verification, before access to potentially objectionable material is granted.
CJI Kant noted that the standard disclaimer, usually a brief on-screen warning, fails to prevent a viewer from being involuntarily exposed to objectionable content.
A stronger regulatory filter, the Court suggested, could ensure that such content is accessed only by consenting adults.
Justice Bagchi emphasised that while obscenity may also appear in books or paintings, digital media poses a greater threat as users are frequently confronted with unsolicited content the moment they turn on their devices.
The Court therefore urged exploration of pilot mechanisms that could balance user protection with freedom of speech.
Need for an Independent Regulatory Authority
The Bench rejected the adequacy of “self-styled” self-regulatory bodies and called for an autonomous, expert-driven entity to scrutinize digital content.
According to the judges, such a body should be independent and free of external influence, serving as an interim arbiter on whether certain content should be restricted.
The Court clarified, however, that constitutional liberties would remain paramount. It stressed that no measure should result in an excessive restraint on free expression under Article 19(1)(a), but equally, it cannot ignore the rights and dignity protected under Article 21.
Protection of Persons with Disabilities
A significant portion of the hearing revolved around derogatory remarks allegedly made by Raina in a podcast episode.
The Cure SMA India Foundation accused him of ridiculing individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), and the Court expressed deep concern over content that demeans persons with disabilities.
CJI Kant questioned why disability rights should not be protected by legislation as stringent as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arguing that dignity cannot be compromised in the name of humour or entertainment.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concurred, acknowledging that comedic expression must not come at the expense of vulnerable groups.
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, representing SMA-affected children, explained that such ridicule causes substantial harm: not only emotional, but practical, as it undermines crowdfunding and community support efforts.
She stressed that those affected are not seeking donations from comedians but respect and recognition of their personhood.
The Court appeared sympathetic, observing that self-respect and representation for persons with disabilities must take precedence over reputational damage control through monetary contributions.
It suggested that creators instead engage directly with disabled communities, amplify their stories, and support treatment-focused initiatives.
Concerns Over “Anti-National” Content
Justice Bagchi raised the broader question of digital content that could be classified as anti-national or disruptive to the social order. He asked whether self-regulation alone would be adequate to address such scenarios, particularly given the speed at which harmful content goes viral.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a disabled professor, warned against vague terminology, noting that ordinary academic commentary could be wrongfully labelled
“anti-national.”
The Court acknowledged this concern but reiterated that expression which genuinely threatens sovereignty, unity, or integrity cannot be immune from scrutiny.
Government’s Response
Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting plans to hold consultations with stakeholders.
Solicitor General Mehta added that relevant policy proposals, including possible amendments to existing law, are under active consideration, and discussions with cabinet ministers are ongoing.
The Court directed that a formal proposal be placed in the public domain following consultation, stressing transparency and wide engagement.
It also encouraged the petitioning parties and online creators to hold two community-oriented events per month, designed to raise awareness and generate funds for the treatment of persons with disabilities.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
