The Supreme Court on Monday summoned five social media influencers and stand-up comics including Samay Raina over offensive and derogatory remarks made against persons with disabilities, even as it stressed that any speech that demeans a community or class of persons will be curtailed.
The court considered the issue in a petition filed by Cure SMA Foundation working for the welfare of disabled persons, that produced as evidence, videos where comedian Raina and four others were seen making fun of persons with disabilities.
Issuing notice on the petition to the Centre and Maharashtra government, the court directed the Mumbai Police Commissioner to ensure the presence of the five in court on the next date failing which the bench threatened to order coercive steps to secure their presence. Besides Raina, the other persons summoned by the court are Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjit Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar.
Raina is no stranger to controversy; he hosted India’s Got Latent, the show in which podcaster and influencer Ranveer Allahbadia made distasteful and obnoxious comments
The bench headed by justice Surya Kant took strong objection to “irresponsible statements” made by the five: “There are people who seek fundamental right of free speech. If there is such freedom, then we will curtail any speech which demeans another community.”
{{/usCountry}}The bench headed by justice Surya Kant took strong objection to “irresponsible statements” made by the five: “There are people who seek fundamental right of free speech. If there is such freedom, then we will curtail any speech which demeans another community.”
{{/usCountry}}The order said, “The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai is directed to serve notice on the respondents (Raina and others) to ensure their presence in court failing which coercive steps will be taken to secure their presence.”
The petition argued by senior advocate Aparajita Singh said that while the foundation is a votary of free speech, such speech should respect other communities as the effect of making such statements has a very damaging effect on persons with disabilities and their families. According to her, the offensive expressions used to mock at disabled persons amounts to “hate speech” which does not deserve any protection under right to free speech, a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a).
The bench, also comprising justice N Kotiswar Singh, said, “On one hand, through judicial and legislative measures, we want to integrate such persons into the society, and you damage it by passing such statements.”
The court said that it was keen to lay down guidelines, both punitive and preventive, to ensure persons indulging in such speech are not spared. “We would like to lay down some guidelines to prevent such persons from indulging in irresponsible behaviour. We need to think about having remedial and punitive steps which can be preventive in nature, that can be taken against such persons,” the bench observed.
The court requested Attorney General R Venkatramani to assist the court on the next date “having regard to the sensitivity and importance of the issue” and permitted the Union government, state of Maharashtra, and Aparajita Singh to make suggestions in this regard.
The petitioner initially filed an application before the top court last month in a case where Allahbadia approached the court to club criminal cases against him pending in Assam and Maharashtra after he made some offensive comments on a show “India’s Got Latent”.
SMA Foundation said that in the same show, Raina made fun of a blind and cross-eyed persons and upon deeper probe, the organisation came across multiple instances where persons with disabilities were ridiculed and humiliated on this show.
The petitioner attached video clips of statements made by the other four persons “denigrating” persons with disabilities.
The petition sought a two-fold relief - guidelines to regulate the broadcast of such online content which violates the right to life and dignity of the persons with disabilities, and a positive obligation on the government and private entities to adopt a unique standard of representation of persons with disability in the online domain.
Although there is a regulatory framework governing the broadcasting of online content, under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Code of Conduct and the Programme Code provided under Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, the petition pointed out that such instances point to the yawning gap between the existence of regulations and their implementation.