Today, On 27th November, Supreme Court said Samay Raina and other creators must persuade specially-abled persons to join their programmes, directing them to support fundraising efforts. The Court stressed meaningful participation to ensure dignity, inclusion and awareness for disabled communities nationwide.
The Supreme Court today directed Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Ghai, Sonali Thakker, and Nishant Tanwar to engage and invite individuals with disabilities to their platforms to raise funds for timely treatment for those affected, including individuals with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).
This instruction came from a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant while hearing a petition filed by the NGO Cure SMA Foundation, which sought regulation of online content and action against Comedian Samay Raina and others for allegedly ridiculing persons with disabilities.
The bench, which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi, ordered,
“We are confident that if respondents 6 to 10 show sincerity about showing their achievements… they will also come on the platform for wider publicity of their cause. We hope and expect that such few memorable events will take place before we hear the matter the next date. Let such two programs be held twice a month,”
Additionally, the Court urged the Central government to draft legislation for disabled individuals akin to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
CJI Kant asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,
“Why don’t you think about bringing in a legislation like the SC ST Act for disabled people?”
In response, SG Mehta emphasized that the issue at hand was not merely about obscenity but about deeper societal concerns.
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the foundation, told the bench,
“Two proposals that I have, the person concerned Samay Raina, he says he has some event organised, he has deposited 2.5 lakhs in our account, we don’t need that, we require dignity… our biggest problem is awareness… treatment cost is very high, most of the drugs are imported and their cost is also high… learned SG may look into CSR funding…”
She suggested that the individuals involved should collaborate with disabled persons to share their success stories.
CJI Kant concurred, stating,
“One program every fortnight, and the revenue should go into the corpus… for the next 2-3 years… not just for the next two months… we are not going to spare you… we are considering this a bona fide mistake therefore no penal consequence…”
In August, the Supreme Court had criticized Comedian Samay Raina and others regarding their apology for allegedly mocking individuals with disabilities, noting,
“The apology must always be proportional to the disrespect caused…”
CJI Kant elaborated,
“Today we have an unfortunate case of disabled, tomorrow it can be women, then children, then senior citizens… where this society will land…”
Previously, the Court had expressed strong disapproval of Raina’s mockery related to the high cost of SMA treatment, insisting that such ridicule cannot be dismissed as humor or satire when it demeans those with disabilities.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh urged for regulatory measures to prevent harmful speech targeting the disabled community, emphasizing that Raina’s comments regarding the Rs 16 crore treatment cost had a detrimental psychological and social impact, reducing public empathy, and hindering fundraising efforts for treatment.
She also cited instances where Raina allegedly mocked a visually impaired person and noted a video where former cricketers Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajan Singh, and Suresh Raina were seen mimicking injuries, trivializing disability.
Stressing that people with disabilities are often portrayed as objects of pity or ridicule in mainstream media, violating their right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution,Singh argued,
“These clips are merely the tip of the iceberg,”
Acknowledging the issue, the Court had directed the NGO to compile a list of such incidents along with video transcripts and suggestions for remedial measures.
The bench had remarked,
“Free speech cannot be a license to demean vulnerable communities under the guise of satire,”
Case Title: M/S. Cure SMA Foundation of India vs. Union of India & Ors