Supreme Court Directs Centre to Frame Strict Law Protecting Dignity of People with Disabilities

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Centre to consider implementing a stringent law that would make derogatory remarks against people with disabilities and rare genetic disorders a penal offense, similar to the SC-ST Act. The court emphasized the critical need to protect the dignity of disabled individuals.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, questioned why the government couldn't introduce legislation comparable to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, which criminalizes discrimination, humiliation, and casteist slurs against SC and ST communities as non-bailable offenses.

"Why can't you bring a stringent law on the lines of the SC-ST Act which criminalises casteist remarks - there is punishment if you demean them," the bench stated.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, endorsed this observation, affirming that humor should never compromise someone's dignity. The court additionally emphasized the necessity for a "neutral, independent and autonomous" regulatory body to monitor and control offensive, obscene, or illegal content on digital platforms.

The Ministry of Broadcasting informed the court that guidelines addressing derogatory remarks against persons with disabilities (PwD) were being developed. The bench requested these guidelines be made available for public discussion and scheduled the next hearing in four weeks.

The case originated from a petition by M/s SMA Cure Foundation, an organization supporting individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy disease. The petition highlighted offensive jokes made by comedian Samay Raina, host of "India's Got Latent," and other social media influencers including Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar.

The court directed these comedians to conduct two programs monthly featuring success stories of people with disabilities to generate funds for treatment, particularly for those with SMA. This requirement was described as a "social penalty" in lieu of other punitive measures.

Chief Justice Kant suggested that influencers invite specially-abled individuals onto their platforms to help raise funds for those suffering from rare diseases like SMA. The bench rejected appeals to recall this directive, stating, "This is a social burden we are putting on you."

Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing for the Cure Foundation, highlighted the remarkable achievements of many children with SMA. She noted that parents of SMA patients typically secure treatment funding through crowdfunding efforts. Singh mentioned that the foundation had declined Raina's offer of Rs 2.5 lakh, as the fundamental issue was about dignity rather than compensation.

The Chief Justice cautioned the comedians, saying, "You and your team need to be very careful in the future.. whether within the country or outside...someone was making comments in Canada also... we know all of this."

The bench suggested creating a dedicated fund for treating specially-abled persons, particularly those with SMA, and encouraged corporate entities and individuals to contribute generously. The comedians volunteered to organize at least two monthly events to raise funds and requested permission to invite individuals with success stories to participate.

The court expressed confidence that if the comedians demonstrated genuine remorse and commitment, specially-abled individuals who have achieved significant accomplishments would likely accept invitations to appear on their platforms to support the cause.

Attorney General R Venkataramani and the Solicitor General informed the court that the Centre was developing new guidelines and conducting consultations. The Solicitor General emphasized that the issue extended beyond mere obscenity to "perversity" in user-generated content published on platforms like YouTube.

Addressing self-regulatory mechanisms, the bench noted, "Self-styled bodies will not help. Some neutral autonomous bodies which are free from the influence of those who exploit all of this and the state also are needed as a regulatory measure."

The Chief Justice questioned the effectiveness of self-regulation, pointing out repeated violations despite such mechanisms. Previously, the court had directed the five social media influencers to display unconditional apologies in their podcasts or shows for ridiculing persons with disabilities and rare genetic disorders.