New Delhi, November 27, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has raised critical concerns regarding the circulation of objectionable content online and emphasized the need for a careful balance between freedom of speech and the protection of public sentiments. The observations came during a hearing involving several high-profile content creators, including comedians Samay Raina, Ranveer Allahbadia, and others, in connection with a controversy surrounding a YouTube show episode titled India’s Got Latent. The episode had triggered widespread criticism for allegedly insensitive and offensive remarks, including jokes targeting persons with disabilities.

During the proceedings, the apex court deliberated on the broader implications of unregulated online content, particularly how viral content can impact social values and potentially hurt vulnerable groups. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, engaged in an in-depth discussion about the limits of free speech in the digital age, the responsibilities of content creators, and the mechanisms needed to regulate online platforms effectively.

Freedom of Expression Versus Public Accountability

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, highlighted that freedom of expression, while a constitutional right, does not equate to the right to do “anything and everything.” He suggested that regulation of user-generated content is necessary to ensure that expression does not transgress legal or societal boundaries. The court seemed receptive to this view, acknowledging that unrestricted content can lead to unintended consequences.

Chief Justice Kant observed that while freedom of speech must be safeguarded, accountability is essential, especially for adult-oriented content. “It is strange that I create my own channel and keep doing things without being accountable,” he remarked, emphasizing the potential dangers of leaving content creators entirely unregulated. The bench also considered the role of parental warnings in managing adult content online, suggesting that preemptive alerts could help users exercise discretion while viewing potentially sensitive material.

Representing the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation, counsel pointed out that existing regulations such as the Digital Media Ethics Code—applicable to streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video—are currently subjudice. The court noted that while content on traditional streaming services is subject to scrutiny, user-generated content on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and other digital spaces remains largely unregulated.

Self-Regulation May Not Be Sufficient

The court expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of self-regulation or self-styled bodies monitoring online content. Justice Bagchi remarked, “When content is anti-national or disruptive of the societal structure… will self-regulation suffice? The difficulty is response time, and by the time the government responds, the content may already have gone viral, reaching millions or even billions of viewers.”

Chief Justice Kant echoed this concern, suggesting that the current mechanisms for content moderation are inadequate in the face of viral dissemination. “If everything is allowed, then what will happen?” he asked, highlighting the potential risks of leaving content completely unchecked. The bench emphasized that there is a pressing need for an autonomous regulatory body to oversee digital content, one capable of ensuring compliance without compromising fundamental rights.

Obscenity and Online Content

The Supreme Court also discussed how obscenity in online content differs from traditional mediums like books, paintings, or exhibitions. The Chief Justice observed that while conventional forms of expression are subject to restrictions, digital content can be imposed on users unexpectedly through phones or devices, leading to inadvertent exposure. “Obscenity can be in a book, painting, etc. If there is an auction, there can be restrictions also. The moment you switch on your phone and something comes that you do not want or is forced on you, then what?” he asked.

Justice Bagchi proposed that warnings be extended to all users, not just adults, so that sensitive content does not shock or disturb audiences unexpectedly. The bench suggested practical solutions, such as requesting Aadhaar-based age verification following the issuance of a warning, to ensure that only adults access content meant for mature viewers. Chief Justice Kant emphasized that pilot measures could be implemented to test these mechanisms and reviewed to ensure that they do not infringe upon free speech, while also cultivating a more responsible digital society.

SC’s Directive to Content Creators

The Supreme Court also issued specific directives to content creators involved in the India’s Got Latent controversy. The court observed that comedians like Samay Raina had made insensitive jokes targeting persons with disabilities. In response to a petition filed by the CURE SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Foundation of India, seeking protective measures for persons with disabilities (PwD), the court directed the comedians to organize at least two programs a month featuring specially-abled persons.

The programs are intended to showcase the achievements of persons with disabilities and raise funds for medical treatment and awareness. The bench stated, “We are confident that if the respondents show sincerity about showcasing 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 on the next date.” The court reiterated that this directive is part of a reparative measure for the insensitive jokes aired in the controversial episode.

Balancing Rights and Responsibility

The hearing highlighted the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility of content creatorsto avoid hurting public sentiments. The apex court made it clear that while creators enjoy the liberty to express themselves, digital platforms cannot operate in a regulatory vacuum, especially when content has the potential to reach massive audiences in a matter of hours.

The bench’s observations reflect growing concerns in India about the impact of unmoderated online content on public morality, societal harmony, and vulnerable groups. The judges noted that traditional legal frameworks are often ill-equipped to handle the speed and scale of online content dissemination, and there is a pressing need for proactive mechanisms to ensure responsible digital expression.

Implications for Digital Content Regulation

The Supreme Court’s remarks signal an important step toward establishing guidelines for online content governance, balancing free speech with accountability. It also emphasizes that voluntary self-regulation may not suffice, and there is a need for institutional oversight to prevent viral content from causing harm before it can be moderated.

For content creators, the court’s directives serve as a reminder of ethical responsibilities, particularly when humor or satire involves sensitive groups such as persons with disabilities. By requiring Raina and other comedians to engage in awareness and fundraising programs, the court seeks to transform potentially harmful digital influence into a positive social impact, leveraging the reach and popularity of creators for a public good.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s hearing in the India’s Got Latent case underscores the urgent need to rethink digital content regulation in India. While freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of democracy, the Court has highlighted the responsibilities that come with digital influence, particularly for creators whose content reaches millions of users instantly. Through its observations and directives, the Court aims to cultivate a responsible online ecosystem, where free speech, ethical conduct, and social accountability coexist.

By addressing both systemic issues of content moderation and specific instances of harm, the apex court has provided a blueprint for future regulatory approaches in the digital media space. The case also serves as a cautionary tale for content creators, illustrating that virality and freedom do not exempt them from ethical and legal accountability. As the matter continues to be heard, the Supreme Court’s intervention is likely to have long-lasting implications on how online content is created, consumed, and regulated in India, setting standards for responsible digital citizenship in an era dominated by social media and streaming platforms.