SC’s BIG order on influencers for mocking people with disabilities amid Ranveer Allahbadia row

The court observed that Influencers at large have been hurting certain sections of society while stating that commercialising speech should come with responsibility. “Influencers of today should realise that commercialising speech comes with responsibility. The community at large should not be used to hurt certain sections of society,” stated the court.

Supreme Court asks Influencers to apologise for mocking people with disabilities

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that guidelines for social media regulations shouldn’t be a knee-jerk reaction but based on broad parameters having views of all stakeholders. The respondents’ counsel have nodded to have each of them post an apology on their YouTube channels and podcasts. They are also asked to file affidavits confirming compliance. For now, the court has exempted their personal appearances, while reserving a decision on imposing penalties or costs for a later date.

Also read: India’s Got Latent case: SC denies YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s plea for passport release until…

What are key directives?

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is tasked with creating guidelines for language used on social media platforms to protect the dignity of all persons, including those with disabilities. The court stated that guidelines should not be a reaction to a single incident but rather consider the broader challenges posed by technological advancements. It was observed that the guidelines should be made to ensure that social media platforms promote respectful and dignified interactions, particularly towards persons with disabilities. The Ministry is also required to consult with the National Board for the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (NBDSA) and other relevant stakeholders while framing the rules. 

Earlier, the court had directed social media influencers Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Tanwar to appear personally due to allegations of mocking individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy and blindness. The court slammed their actions as “damaging” and “demoralising,” while emphasising that freedom of speech (Article 19) cannot supersede the right to dignity (Article 21).