Today, On 25th August, Supreme Court told comedian Samay Raina that the apology he tendered in court must also appear on the same platforms where he posts content, stressing that influencers should use their reach to spread awareness and respect persons with disabilities.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today heard a petition filed by M/s SMA Cure Foundation against comedians Samay Raina and others.
The Foundation alleged that the jokes made by these comedians mocked and insulted persons with disabilities (PwDs).
The matter came up before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.
At the beginning, Justice Surya Kant noted,
“There’s an impleadment by Ministry of I&B.”
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the Foundation, told the court that good sense had finally prevailed as all the comedians involved in the matter had already issued apologies.
On the other hand, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the bench that while guidelines for such cases would require some time to be framed, it was not possible to impose a complete restriction.
Justice Surya Kant pointed out,
“It must be broad-based, not incident-specific. Expert opinion is needed. Apology is fine, but should organizations like you should come to court every time?”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed,
“Humor is part of life, but mocking others breaches sensitivity. In a diverse country, influencers cannot commercialize speech at the cost of hurting communities. This isn’t just free speech but commercial speech where no absolute freedom exists, as held in Amish Devgan.”
Referring to the Disability Act, Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh argued that the dignity of persons with disabilities cannot be compromised merely because they are differently abled.
Justice Surya Kant underlined,
“The punishment should be proportionate with the damage.”
He further added that there must be a mechanism to balance the rights in such cases, noting that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had already filed an impleadment application and their stand would be important.
Justice Bagchi also observed that the existing NBA guidelines do not extend to influencers or podcasts, which creates a regulatory gap.
Justice Kant responded,
“New challenges require a new mechanism.”
Counsel representing the comedians informed the bench that an unconditional apology had already been given and that all respondents were present as directed, except for respondent number 9 who had been acquitted.
Justice Kant then asked,
“Madam Aprajita you tell us what penalty we should impose.”
In response, she stated that the decision may be left to the court and suggested that any penalty imposed should be directed towards the welfare and benefit of disability groups.
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh responded that the decision on penalty could be left to the court and suggested that any such direction should ultimately benefit disability groups.
Justice Kant warned,
“Today it is disabled, tomorrow it will be women then children then it can be senior citizens where will the society end then?”
She further emphasised that influencers hold significant influence and should be encouraged to use their platforms to promote awareness and support for the cause.
Justice Kant then directed,
“The apology you gave in court must also be shown on the same channels and platforms where you post content.”
Finally, the court passed its order allowing the impleadment of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Attorney General R Venkataramani assured the bench that draft guidelines would be framed in consultation with respondent number 4 and other stakeholders, with the objective of safeguarding the rights, dignity, and respect of all.
The court directed respondents 6 to 10 to post their apologies on their respective YouTube channels and further ordered that the draft guidelines must be prepared in consultation with NBSA and stakeholders in a manner that protects dignity, honour, and rights, not as a knee-jerk response but broad enough to address future challenges.
The order also recorded that respondents 6 to 10 would tender unconditional apologies on their YouTube channels and submit affidavits containing their suggestions to Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, while dispensing with their personal appearance.
In conclusion, Justice Surya Kant noted,
“We have dont nothing which was beyond our duty. The degree of repentance should be more than the degree of damage.”
Case Title: RANVEER GAUTAM ALLAHABADIA V UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025