Key Points
- CJI Surya Kant suggests Aadhaar verification to block pornographic content from minors on OTT platforms
- Aadhaar-based age verification proposed as pilot project to test effectiveness
- Court expresses concern that warning disclaimers are ineffective, lasting only seconds before content plays
- Supreme Court slams Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahabadia for mocking disabled people in online content
- Comedians ordered to host disabled achievers twice monthly and raise funds for disability treatment
- Court mandates creation of autonomous, independent regulatory body free from external pressure
- Government to submit comprehensive online content regulation proposal within one week
The Supreme Court of India has entered unprecedented territory by suggesting that viewers may soon need to verify their identity using Aadhaar cards before accessing adult content on major OTT platforms. During a Thursday hearing on digital content regulation, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant articulated the problem succinctly: current warning systems are toothless because viewers see disclaimers for mere seconds before content automatically begins playing. The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, recognised that parental controls and warning messages have failed to protect India’s children from exposure to pornographic and age-inappropriate material.
CJI Kant emphasised that this age-verification mechanism through Aadhaar could be implemented as an illustrative suggestion and tested initially on a pilot basis. The court acknowledged the delicate balance between child protection and freedom of expression, noting that if the system impedes free speech, it could be reconsidered. The bench stressed that building a “responsible society” is foundational to resolving these problems, with proper age-verification serving as one mechanism to create accountability among both viewers and platform operators.
The Ineffective Warning System: Why Current Disclaimers Fail
Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised a critical observation about regulatory inconsistencies, noting that while obscenity in books and films is strictly controlled through established certification systems, mobile phones and streaming platforms operate in a regulatory vacuum. Inappropriate content appears instantly upon screen activation, with minimal friction for accidental exposure by children. The court expressed genuine frustration that while the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules exist, platform self-regulatory mechanisms have proven grossly inadequate.
The fundamental flaw, as the bench identified it, is that platforms display brief disclaimers without enforcing any meaningful verification. A child can simply click past a warning and access explicit content within seconds, making the current system virtually useless as a protective measure. Aadhaar-based verification would introduce friction, requiring actual identity confirmation before accessing restricted material, thereby creating a technological barrier that matches the regulatory safeguards applied to physical media.
Disability Rights Crisis: Supreme Court Condemns Offensive Comedy
The Supreme Court has taken a forceful stance against comedians and podcasters who mock disabled individuals, declaring such behaviour fundamentally incompatible with freedom of expression. During the hearing of petitions against Samay Raina’s “India’s Got Latent” YouTube show and Ranveer Allahabadia’s podcast, the bench came down heavily on content creators who monetise offensive jokes at the expense of persons with disabilities.
Justice Surya Kant made it unmistakably clear that “mocking the disabled in the name of freedom is unacceptable”. The court rejected the argument that offensive comedy falls under protected speech, noting that comedians cannot hide behind “freedom of expression” while profiting from content that ridicules vulnerable populations. The bench noted multiple instances where “India’s Got Latent” featured content trivialising disability, including jokes about children with spinal muscular atrophy requiring life-saving ₹16 lakh injections and comments mocking Deepika Padukone’s depression.
New Directives: Samay Raina Must Spotlight Disability Achievers
Rather than imposing punitive criminal measures, the Supreme Court has assigned Samay Raina and others what it termed a “social burden, not a penal one”. The comedian and his co-hosts have been ordered to dedicate content space twice monthly to showcase disabled achievers and individuals overcoming rare disease challenges. Additionally, the court directed them to actively fundraise for the treatment costs of persons with disabilities and rare diseases using their substantial platform reach.
The Supreme Court further instructed Raina to post public video apologies on all social media platforms, acknowledging the harm caused by offensive jokes and committing to responsible content creation. The bench made clear that this directive represents an accountability measure for content creators who have accumulated audiences and advertising revenue by monetising edgy material targeting vulnerable groups. The court simultaneously requested the Centre to consider framing stronger statutes that make derogatory remarks about disabled persons a specific legal violation.
Government to Frame Comprehensive Online Regulation Framework
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R. Venkataraman, representing the government, informed the Supreme Court that serious consideration is being given to digital content regulation. They committed to consulting all relevant stakeholders, including platform operators, content creators, civil society organisations, child protection advocates, and disability rights groups. The government pledged to submit a detailed report outlining proposed regulatory measures within one week.
Mehta raised the challenging issue of user-generated content, noting that distinguishing between protected speech and harmful content on platforms hosting millions of daily submissions requires nuanced regulatory design. However, CJI Kant pushed back, emphasising that free speech does not mean uncontrolled activity and that reasonable restrictions as enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution must apply to online content just as they do to traditional media.
New Independent Regulatory Body: Moving Beyond Self-Regulation
The Supreme Court has determined that industry self-regulatory bodies and platform content moderation teams are fundamentally insufficient for protecting public interest. The bench emphasised the critical need for an autonomous, independent regulatory authority empowered to assess online content, establish standards, and enforce compliance without external pressure from government, industry, or other stakeholders. This proposed regulator would handle all forms of potentially harmful content, including material deemed obscene, insulting to disabled persons, and anti-national.
The court reiterated that fundamental rights must remain balanced, and that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, reasonable restrictions apply in precisely the circumstances now evident, where platforms distribute unlimited harmful content to minors. CJI Kant clarified that the court does not wish to silence speech, but rather to create structures ensuring that content creators and platforms bear responsibility for their material. The proposed independent body would represent a significant shift from current self-regulation to formal governmental oversight with built-in protections against state overreach.
