The Supreme Court on Monday stressed the importance of a balanced approach to regulating YouTube and similar platforms, cautioning that inflexible and harsh rules to regulate YouTubers and those on similar digital platforms could impose a “gag on free speech” and prove “devastating”, even as it acknowledged the growing need for an effective mechanism to protect privacy, dignity and reputation of individuals and organisations from harmful online content.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that while the court was conscious of increasing instances where individuals’ rights were infringed through online videos and commentary, a balanced approach was essential.
“Unless there is some stringent mechanism, it (YouTube and the like) cannot be controlled or regulated. But an inflexible mechanism has its own risk. They may amount to a gag on free speech and could prove devastating...We think these instances will have to be examined on a case-by-case basis,” the bench remarked.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Kerala-based YouTuber Suraj Palakaran, who sought quashing of criminal proceedings against him for allegedly revealing the identity of a child involved in a POCSO case in one of his videos.
The bench noted that Palakaran had released the photograph of the child’s father, which eventually resulted in the child’s identity being revealed—an offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act.
{{/usCountry}}The bench noted that Palakaran had released the photograph of the child’s father, which eventually resulted in the child’s identity being revealed—an offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act.
{{/usCountry}}“Ordinarily, the view of the high court, being the correct statement of law, ought to be taken. The disclosure of the identity of the child is as serious as the offence,” the order recorded.
The court, however, took into account the YouTuber’s explanation that the disclosure was unintentional and did not lower the reputation of the child or mother, and allowed him an opportunity to repent and reform.
While quashing the criminal case, the bench imposed a strict condition that Palakaran file an undertaking before the jurisdictional sessions judge stating that neither he nor his associates would ever commit such lapse again, promising meticulous adherence to POCSO provisions. It added that if this undertaking is violated, all proceedings in the criminal case shall automatically revive.
Monday’s hearing comes amid an ongoing debate on the limits of online expression, accountability of creators, and the absence of a strong regulatory framework. Unlike mainstream media, which is regulated, and held accountable, YouTube and similar platforms are not -- and the past few years have seen a surge in the number of people using these platforms to disseminate news.
On November 27, the same bench had emphasised the need for an independent oversight mechanism to regulate user-generated content and directed the Centre to draft guidelines within four weeks after public consultation.
“This is something very strange that I create my own platform and channel but there is no accountability. There must be a sense of responsibility attached to such content,” the bench had said on the day, while hearing a petition by podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia seeking protection from multiple cases over vulgar remarks on a show.
The bench had stressed that regulation is not meant to “throttle anyone but to create a sieve” to prevent obscenity, misinformation, and harm, and proposed stronger age-verification tools such as Aadhaar-based gating before explicit content is viewable.
“A warning of one line and then the video starts- by the time a person understands the warning, it is already there,” the court had observed.
The Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, acknowledged the problem of harmful user-generated content and pointed to proposed amendments to the IT Rules, including guidelines on obscenity, deepfakes and AI.
Multiple industry bodies, including the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation and News Broadcasters Association, had argued on that day that existing grievance redressal structures were effective, but the court expressed scepticism: “These self-styled bodies cannot be effective. There has to be an autonomous body which is free from the influence of those who are part of this forum.”
The court also questioned whether online platforms would take down content that is “per se anti-national” or injurious to social values, asking: “Do we expect innocent people who are victimised to go and file for damages? They do not have a forum.”
At the same time, the bench assured that any regulation framed would be tested against free speech standards. ““We will not put a seal of approval if we find these provisions are used to gag someone. Freedom of speech must be protected. But society and innocent children also have a fundamental right to dignity.”