Today, On 27th November, Obscenity complaints from ‘India’s Got Latent’ have led the Supreme Court to re-examine harmful online content, with the CJI stressing, “We need to strike a balance between fundamental rights.” The Court heard petitions by influencers Ranveer Allahbadia and Ashish Chanchlani.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up the petitions filed by influencers Ranveer Allahbadia and Ashish Chanchlani, who are seeking the quashing of multiple FIRs registered over their YouTube show.
During the hearing, the Bench engaged in an extensive discussion on the growing impact of user-generated content (UGC), the limits of free speech, and the urgent need for a preventive regulatory system.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan first informed the Court,
“We have filed an intervention on behalf of disabled persons.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded,
“I’m not opposing the proposal there are guidelines already.”
When the Bench asked,
“So what’s the concern?”
The SG replied,
“The problem now isn’t just obscenity, but perversity. Something has to be addressed. There’s a gap in the regulation of user generated content.”
Justice Surya Kant noted,
“People can make their own channels and they can say anything now and not be held accountable.”
Bhushan argued that the issue had already been studied deeply earlier, saying,
“This issue has already been dealt with to a great extent in Shriya Singhal.”
However, the SG countered,
“These people are broadcasters. My friend is on Shriya Singhal and freedom of speech but we have come a far way from there.”
He added,
“Freedom of speech is a precious right, but it can’t be stretched to justify perverse content.”
The CJI acknowledged the importance of free speech, stating,
“We fully recognise the right to speech if a programme contains adult material, there should at least be a prior warning.”
The SG then requested,
“Your Lordships may take it up after three weeks.”
Bhushan followed with,
“For issues like this, there must be broad-based consultations on such programmes.”
Taking note of public concerns, the CJI directed,
“Identify the appropriate department or experts public representatives can also be included since people are deeply engaged with this content.”
A counsel for IBDF submitted,
“Age ratings and content warnings are already in place. The Digital Media Ethics Code also exists.”
The Court asked,
“What’s the status of that code?”
The counsel replied,
“It’s sub judice several challenges were transferred to the Delhi High Court and will be heard on January 8. It concerns platforms like Netflix, with around 27 petitions. There’s also a Broadcast Complaints Commission headed by Justice Gita Mittal. But this matter is different it arises from comments on user generated content. The Ministry has filed a note saying they are considering UGC guidelines.”
Bhushan then said,
“Suppose that someone says that some part of India not being part of sovereign India suppose someone says that Sikkim..”
The SG objected, saying,
“Now you are just instigating.”
Bhushan explained,
“The issue is if someone writes an academic article on border disputes, will that be branded “anti-national”?”
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing online, responded,
“Sometimes it can be.”
CJI Kant remarked,
“A screening body could look into such concerns.”
Bhushan warned the Court,
“But creating such a body was already examined in Shreya Singhal while striking down Section 66A of the IT Act.”
The SG criticised civil society positions, saying,
“This association objects to anything done in the name of national interest.”
The CJI responded,
“We need to strike a balance between fundamental rights.”
Bhushan stressed that vague labels can be dangerous, stating,
“With respect, the term “anti-national” is vague Shreya Singhal dealt with this in detail.”
The CJI clarified the Court’s thinking,
“We’re only suggesting an autonomous body for the interim to decide what can go online. If it’s permissible, it stays. If everything is allowed without any filter, what’s the consequence?”
Bhushan illustrated his concern with a personal example,
“When I wrote a paper on the COVID vaccine, my Twitter account was suspended for two weeks for allegedly spreading “vaccine skepticism.””
The CJI explained,
“Our concern is when harmful content affects someone who can’t protect themselves by the time they approach the court, the damage is already done.”
Justice Bagchi added,
“Look at the kind of impact this creates. The legal framework needs a preventive system to avoid misinformation and harm to life or property.”
Bhushan responded,
“Sometimes the harm is greater than any supposed benefit.”
The CJI assured,
“There’s no rush here.”
He continued,
“Millions of people who can’t reach this or any other court are exposed to such humiliation.”
The SG pointed to a specific example from the Ranveer Allahbadia show,
“In the same Ranveer Allahbadia show, a young woman asks someone if they’ve seen a female sexual organ other than their mother’s the whole format encourages humiliation.”
The CJI observed,
“We’d be the last to push for regulation if you all proposed a workable system. You keep saying there are associations and mechanisms then why do these incidents still happen?”
The counsel requested,
“We request that the matter pending before the Delhi High Court be transferred to the Supreme Court.”
The CJI said,
“We’ll list this case again in 3–4 weeks. Mr. AG, whatever proposal you come up with must go through public consultation.”
He then said,
“Now, about the children we hope they’re behaving better.”
The counsel informed the Bench,
“They’ve filed an affidavit offering an unconditional apology.”
The CJI refused to impose a penalty, saying,
“We won’t impose a fine, but you must propose a donation to a suitable institution.”
The SG highlighted a deeper issue,
“Some of these remarks aren’t spontaneous they’re scripted and intentional, which makes it perverse.”
The CJI compared forms of obscenity across mediums,
“Obscenity can exist in books or art, and even auctions can have restrictions. But when you switch on your phone and content you never asked for is pushed onto you what then?”
Justice Kant raised a practical concern,
“Suppose someone is viewing adult content with family. The diaclaimer comes for second and then the video starts so by the time they understand its is gone. This is problematic.”
The CJI suggested safeguards,
“A warning could appear briefly, and age verification like using Aadhaar might follow before the programme begins. These are only tentative ideas. A panel with experts from different fields, including the judiciary and media, could try a pilot model. If it ends up restricting free speech, it can be reviewed. The aim is to foster a responsible society, which would resolve most issues over time.”
Later, Senior Advocate Aprajita Singh, appearing for Cure SMA, explained their grievances.
She said,
“We’re a charitable trust run by parents of affected children. In one of Samay Raina’s shows, these children were mocked. Your Lordships may view it. These parents aren’t helpless one works at Microsoft, another is a music composer, one studied at Michigan State University, and another is an accomplished author.”
She added,
“We are not poor or illiterate. We are just here for dignity. The cost incurred by parents are huge not that we are asking for it from the other side.”
The CJI appreciated the families, observing,
“Exactly the parents come from strong professional backgrounds. They are very accomplished individuals very good.”
Singh said,
“Samay Raina says he held an event in Mumbai and donated Rs.2.5 lakh, but our real concern is the dignity of these children. Accessibility is also a major issue these same children have far better access when they are abroad.”
The CJI expressed concern for others similarly placed,
“And beyond these few individuals, there must be thousands in similar situations. Do we have enough charitable organisations to support them?”
The SG highlighted the financial challenge,
“The concern about their dignity mainly relates to online platforms. The cost of SMA treatment is extremely high while the government provides ₹50 lakh if certain criteria are met, treatment can sometimes cost up to ₹16 crore. Funding the full amount for one case raises questions about fairness to others, so we are exploring a platform where CSR contributions can help.”
The ordered,
“Regarding the concerns raised by the Cure SMA Foundation through Sr Adv Singh, she submitted a note highlighting success stories of individuals affected by avoidable and inappropriate YouTube shows by some private respondents. It was rightly suggested that the relevant ministry should maintain a dedicated fund or corpus and widely publicize it among corporates and organizations to support treatment for specially-abled persons. The private respondents have also volunteered to hold at least two fundraising events per month for this corpus. They have requested the Court’s permission to invite the individuals whose success stories were recorded by Ms Singh.”
Also Read: Samvidhan Divas | From Preamble to Key Amendments: India’s Longest Constitution Explained
Earlier, a Supreme Court lawyer filed a complaint with Delhi’s Cyber Police against YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, stand-up comedian Samay Raina, and others for allegedly making “vulgar references to close family relationships” on a reality show.
The lawyer, Advocate Vineet Jindal, has also urged the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to ban the show ‘India’s Got Latent’, citing its “vulgar content” and impact on Indian culture.
In India, rules about obscenity in online content, TV shows, and websites come under Section 292 of the IPC, the IT Act, and the Indecent Representation of Women Act. If a show like India’s Got Latent is in trouble for obscene content, it may be because people complained or the authorities took action under these laws.
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
