In a significant move aimed at strengthening awareness, dignity, and financial support for persons with disabilities (PwD), the Supreme Court of India on Thursday issued a unique reparative directive to comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagadish Tanwar. The court has mandated that the comedians organise and telecast at least two shows every month dedicated to promoting the success stories of persons with disabilities and raising funds for the treatment of children suffering from rare disorders.

The order stems from a case brought before the apex court by the CURE SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Foundation of India, which alleged that the comedians had made insensitive, disparaging remarks targeting children with disabilities during online comedy programs. The petition argued that such remarks not only demeaned the dignity of PwDs but also undermined ongoing fund-raising efforts for life-saving medical treatments.

The case arrived before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who heard in detail the arguments surrounding the comedians’ alleged offence and the larger implications of their commentary on public perception and empathy for disabled individuals.

The controversy originated from a segment performed by comedian Samay Raina during the show titled India’s Got Latent, where he referenced a charity drive for a two-month-old child suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy. The child required an injection priced at an extraordinary ₹16 crore. Raina jokingly speculated whether parents might reconsider administering such an expensive treatment once the funds were raised. This quip, the petitioners argued, trivialised the enormity of the struggle families face and trivialised the life-or-death circumstances surrounding the disease.

Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the Cure SMA India Foundation, highlighted before the bench that such jokes struck deeply at the dignity of children with disabilities and created barriers to the already arduous process of raising funds for disorders as rare and costly as SMA. She informed the court that treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy often reaches up to ₹16 crore for a single child, creating an overwhelming financial and emotional burden on families. In this environment, any mocking commentary by influential public personalities severely damages public morale and discourages potential donors.

Singh added that insensitive jokes, especially from widely followed comedic platforms, have a cascading impact: they shape audience perceptions, foster stereotypes, and ultimately undermine critical fundraising efforts. “In one of the programmes, children were ridiculed… when such disparaging content comes from a crowd platform, it becomes difficult to raise funding,” she said. Emphasising the need for impactful reparation rather than punitive action, Singh proposed that the comedians use their influence constructively by hosting programs featuring success stories of children with disabilities and raising actionable awareness.

The Supreme Court accepted this suggestion and issued a directive that the comedians must, on their platforms, produce and telecast programs at least twice a month that highlight resilience, achievements, and real-life stories of persons with disabilities. These programs must serve dual purposes: generating awareness and raising funds to support the treatment of children suffering from rare and life-threatening disorders. The bench further instructed the comedians to invite specially abled individuals to participate in these programs, ensuring representation, visibility, and dignity for the PwD community.

Interestingly, counsel appearing for the comedians requested the court to reconsider the frequency of the mandated programs. They argued that the comedians do not host shows regularly and might find it difficult to comply with the requirement of two shows a month. However, the bench declined to modify its direction, emphasising the importance of accountability and the transformative role public figures can play when invested meaningfully in social causes.

The judgment represents a bold shift in the application of restorative justice in India, especially within the realm of digital content. Rather than imposing fines or criminal penalties, the Supreme Court opted for a constructive remedy that leverages the comedians’ platforms for the greater public good. By directing them to raise awareness and funds for persons with disabilities, the court seeks to transform a moment of insensitivity into a sustained channel of empowerment.

This verdict underscores a broader judicial sentiment that public speech, especially by influential entertainers, carries both power and responsibility. Comedy, while protected as free expression, must not come at the cost of humiliating or dehumanising vulnerable communities. When humour reinforces harmful stereotypes or trivialises suffering, courts have increasingly signaled that it falls outside the contours of acceptable expression, especially under constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality.

The directive also aligns with the expanding public discourse around inclusivity and disability rights in India. Organizations working in the disability space have long advocated that mainstream media and entertainment platforms highlight the achievements and challenges of persons with disabilities with sensitivity, respect, and accuracy. The court’s order supports this demand by ensuring prominent visibility for disabled voices through platforms that command large public followings.

Moreover, the focus on fundraising for rare diseases such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy tackles a persistent concern among advocacy groups. SMA treatments like Zolgensma, often cited as among the most expensive medicinal injections in the world, remain far beyond the reach of most families without large-scale community support. By mandating sustained awareness-focused programming, the court’s order directly contributes to life-saving fundraising efforts.

Through its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that humour must not strip individuals of dignity but can be a powerful tool for societal upliftment if channelled responsibly. The order now places the responsibility on the comedians to comply consistently with the mandate, using their voices and platforms not only for entertainment but for meaningful social change.

---