SC flags ineffective self-regulation, proposes autonomous oversight of online content

In a pivotal development shaping India’s digital governance landscape, the Supreme Court on November 27 questioned the effectiveness of self-regulation mechanisms for online platforms and proposed the creation of an independent authority to oversee digital content—one that remains free from influence by both the government and tech platforms.

The observations came from a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while hearing petitions related to alleged obscene content posted by YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia and others during the comedy podcast India’s Got Latent, hosted by Samay Raina.

The court also suggested mandatory age verification using Aadhaar or PAN details to restrict minors from accessing adult content, noting that existing pop-up warnings are “insufficient” and often bypassed before viewers can meaningfully opt out.

Meanwhile, in a detailed filing before the court, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it is preparing amendments to the Code of Ethics under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. The proposals include new guardrails governing obscenity, accessibility, AI-generated content, and deepfakes.

A central proposal is the adoption of mandatory classification standards mirroring film certification norms:

• U (Unrestricted children and adults)
• U/A 7+
• U/A 13+
• U/A 16+
• A (Restricted to adults)

The ministry also plans to prohibit digital content deemed “anti-national,” obscene, defamatory, communal, hurtful to the dignity of women, mocking persons with disabilities, or degrading to religion or social groups. The proposals cite constitutional backing under Article 19(2), which allows restrictions on free speech in the interests of morality, decency, and national security.

Court signals stricter legal frameworks for content mocking disabilities

During arguments, the bench also considered a separate plea accusing comedians of ridiculing persons with disabilities. The Chief Justice suggested exploring a provision similar to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to criminalise digital humiliation of vulnerable groups.

“Humour cannot come at the cost of dignity,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed, adding that today’s online ecosystem has enabled unregulated content creators with significant audiences to bypass statutory norms.

Debate deepens: Safeguarding rights or constraining expression?

While the government argued that unfiltered online access is contributing to perversity and exposing minors to harmful content, civil liberties advocates expressed concern over regulatory overreach. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that earlier court orders required stakeholder consultations—something he argued has not yet been undertaken.

Meanwhile, the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation—which includes major OTT platforms—told the court that age labels and disclosures are already implemented under existing rules, which are currently being litigated before the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court agreed that regulation must strike a balance:

“There must be a mechanism where the fundamental right to free speech is protected,” the CJI said, “but without permitting harm, obscenity, or exploitation.”

What comes next

The matter will continue in the coming weeks, and if implemented, the proposed framework would mark the most extensive overhaul of India’s digital speech regulation since the IT Act came into force.

The court has asked the government to refine its proposals, integrate age-gating mechanisms, and address due process—raising the stakes in a debate that could redefine the boundaries between expression, accountability, and regulation in India’s digital public square.