Supreme Court Demands Accountability for Social Media Content, Proposes Regulatory Framework

The Supreme Court has made strong remarks on online content. (AI generated image)

Somebody has to be accountable for content uploaded on social media, the Supreme Court stated today, while discussing solutions to challenges that emerged during the India's Got Latent case, which brought several YouTubers including Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina into the spotlight.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, emphasized that the issue before the court extends beyond obscenity to perversion, highlighting a gap in regulations for user-generated content. "Freedom of speech is an invaluable right, but it cannot lead to perversity," he remarked.

"This is the problem, so I create my own channel, I am not accountable to anyone... somebody has to be accountable," Chief Justice Surya Kant observed.

The discussion also addressed content perceived as 'anti-national'. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, another member of the bench, questioned, "Where the content is perceived as anti-national. Will the content creator take responsibility for?" He further expressed concern about response times: "The difficulty we are facing is the response time, once the scurrilious material is uploaded, by the time the authorities react, it has gone viral, to millions of viewers, so how do you control that?"

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a professor with disabilities seeking to participate in the discussion, cautioned that labeling content as anti-national could have consequences worse than any benefits.

Justice Bagchi countered, "Forget shreds of anti-national, supposing there is a video which shows that this part is not part of India, what do you do about that?"

Bhushan argued that academic discussions exist about how states became part of India. "Someone may write an academic paper on history, someone may write about the dangers of a particular COVID-19 vaccine." Mehta objected, stating, "You are instigating, do not give these examples."

The Chief Justice intervened, explaining, "This is why we are pitching for an autonomous body... in this society, the children also have a fundamental right to express."

He added, "If you allow everything to be aired and telecast, then what will you do? Are you expecting that innocent people will go and defend themselves... not everyone will have access to this court."

The court questioned the Centre about why such incidents continue to occur if monitoring mechanisms are in place.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court gave the Centre four weeks to establish regulations addressing user-generated social media content. Justice Bagchi suggested, "There should be a warning for someone who may be shocked by such content. Not just above 18... To say that it has content not suitable for general consumption."

The Chief Justice noted, "The issue is that a disclaimer is given and the show starts. But by the time you decide not to watch, it starts. The warning can be for a few seconds... then perhaps ask for your Aadhaar card etc, so that your age can be verified, and then the programme starts." He clarified these were merely illustrative suggestions.

The court proposed an autonomous regulatory body comprising various experts, including representatives from the judiciary and media. "Let something come up on a pilot basis and if it clogs free speech and expression, it can be looked at then. We need to build a responsible society, and once that happens, most of the problems will be solved," it stated.

On The Samay Raina Case

During the hearing, the court inquired whether the "children" – referring to Raina and other comics – were "behaving" now. Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, representing an organization advocating for individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, explained that these children were ridiculed and humiliated by Raina.

"All these children are accomplished and highly talented. When such comments are made on a platform such as, it becomes difficult for crowdfunding," she explained. Regarding Samay Raina, she mentioned he claimed to have deposited Rs 2.5 lakh in their accounts. "But we don't want that. We are here for our dignity."

The Chief Justice then suggested to the Solicitor General, "Why don't you think of a very stringent law which is on the same lines like SC/ST Act where there is punishment if you demean them." The Centre's top lawyer concurred, "Humour cannot be at the cost of someone's dignity."

The court subsequently advised Raina to consider hosting a show for those affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy. "They don't want your money. They want dignity and respect. Use your platform to show their achievements," the bench concluded.