The Supreme Court on Thursday pressed the Union government to examine the possibility of enacting a stringent law that criminalises derogatory or mocking remarks against persons with disabilities and those suffering from rare genetic disorders. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, suggested that such a statute could be modelled on the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which makes casteist insults and humiliating acts non-bailable offences.
“Why can’t you bring a stringent law on the lines of the SC-ST Act which criminalises casteist remarks — there is punishment if you demean them,” the bench asked during the hearing.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta welcomed the court’s observations, remarking that humour cannot come at the cost of someone’s dignity.
Push for an Independent Regulator for Online Content
The bench also emphasised the need for a “neutral, independent and autonomous” authority to regulate obscene, offensive, or illegal content on online platforms. It noted that self-regulatory mechanisms have not been effective enough, pointing out the recurrence of violations.
“If self-regulation was so effective, why are such instances repeating?” the CJI asked, adding that commercial and prohibited speech does not enjoy fundamental rights protection.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting informed the court that guidelines addressing offensive content against persons with disabilities (PwDs) are currently under preparation. The bench directed that the draft guidelines be placed in the public domain for consultation and listed the matter for hearing after four weeks.
Case Arising from Insensitive Jokes About Disabled Persons
The proceedings stem from a petition filed by SMA Cure Foundation, which works for individuals affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy, a rare genetic disorder. The foundation flagged derogatory jokes made by comedian and show host Samay Raina and other influencers — Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar — both in India and abroad.
Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing for the foundation, highlighted that several children with SMA have achieved remarkable milestones, and their parents continue to struggle to raise funds for treatment through crowdfunding.
The foundation said it declined Raina’s offer of ₹2.5 lakh as compensation, insisting that the issue was one of dignity.
Court Imposes ‘Social Penalty’ on Comedians
In a significant direction, the Supreme Court asked Raina and the other influencers to conduct at least two programmes or shows every month dedicated to showcasing the success stories of persons with disabilities. These shows must also serve as fundraisers to support medical treatment for disabled individuals, especially those suffering from SMA.
“This is a social burden we are putting on you,” the bench told the influencers, noting that they are being spared other punitive measures.
The court asked them to “persuade and invite” specially-abled individuals onto their platforms to amplify awareness and encourage donations. The judges expressed confidence that if the influencers show sincerity, many achievers among the disabled community will agree to participate.
“You and your team need to be very careful in the future… whether within the country or outside,” the CJI cautioned, referencing offensive comments allegedly made overseas as well.
Solicitor General Mehta added, “They have mocked this court.”
Call for Dedicated Fund for Treatment of Disabled Persons
Highlighting the urgent need for institutional support, the bench suggested the creation — or wider publicity — of a dedicated corpus fund managed by the appropriate ministry. This fund would attract contributions from individuals and corporate entities for the treatment of persons with disabilities, particularly those with rare conditions like SMA.
Both Attorney General R. Venkataramani and the Solicitor General informed the court that the Centre is in the process of finalising fresh guidelines and that stakeholder consultations are underway.
“Freedom of speech is an invaluable right, but it cannot lead to perversity,” the Solicitor General submitted.
The court will review compliance and progress when the matter is next heard in four weeks.
