The Supreme Court on Monday issued a directive summoning comedian Samay Raina and four other digital content creators to appear in person in connection with allegations of ridiculing persons with disabilities through offensive remarks made on online platforms.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh expressed strong disapproval over the increasing misuse of free speech to demean vulnerable communities. “Hate speech, any speech which is meant to demean another… this kind of freedom, if there, we will curtail it. We know how to…” Justice Kant said during the hearing, signaling the Court’s intent to draw boundaries around such speech.
The case stems from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Cure SMA Foundation, which advocates for the rights of individuals affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy. The Foundation sought judicial intervention to ensure a regulatory framework that explicitly protects persons with disabilities from what it called “disabling humour,” arguing that such content humiliates and marginalizes them.
Besides Raina, the other influencers summoned include Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakar alias Sonali Aditya Desai, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar. The bench instructed the Mumbai Police Commissioner to issue formal notices to all five individuals and guarantee their physical presence before the Court at the next hearing, likely scheduled for July 15. “If they fail to appear, coercive steps will be taken,” the bench warned.
Justice Kant observed that, “While Parliament and courts attempt to assimilate these sections of people into the social mainstream, these kinds of casual yet reprehensible remarks by influencers on social media platforms ridiculing physical disability derail the efforts and objectify disability.”
Appearing for the Foundation, Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh clarified that the petition was not an attack on the principle of free speech, but a plea for accountability. “Such irresponsible remarks even amount to hate speech,” she argued, stressing the need to uphold the dignity of all individuals, particularly the marginalized.
Taking note of the seriousness of the issue, the Court sought the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani “having regard to the sensitivity and importance” of the subject. “We want to curtail this kind of abuse of free speech,” Justice Kant stated, and requested the NGO to present suggestions for both remedial and punitive measures.
The Court also issued notices to the Union Government, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, as well as two major digital broadcast regulators— the News Broadcasters and Digital Association and the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation— to respond and assist in framing effective digital content guidelines.
The bench noted that existing laws do provide for punishment in cases where physical disabilities are mocked or derided. Senior Advocate Singh concluded, emphasizing that “reasonable restrictions must, as the Constitution provides, protect the dignity of every individual.”
