Supreme Court Asks Comedians To Issue Unconditional Apology On Social Media Channels For Insensitive Remarks On Persons With Disabilities
|The Supreme Court said that humour is a part of life however humour based on apartheid pain becomes problematic.
Today, the Supreme Court asked comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Tanwar to publish an unconditional apology on their social media channels for their remarks against persons with disabilities.
The Supreme Court also dispensed with the personal appearance of the concerned parties in the Court, subject to certain conditions.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and said, "Humour is definitely well taken. Humour is a part of life and we laugh at ourselves. But, when we start laughing at others and thereby we create a breach of sensibility... We are a country of varied communities...when on apartheid pain, humour is generated it becomes problematic. And, this is what so called influencers of today should bear in mind. They are commercialising speech and once they commercialise speech it should also be borne in mind that the community at large should not be used to hurt the sentiments of certain sections."
At the outset, Justice Kant asked AGI R. Venkataramani if there was an application for impleading the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as a party. Accordingly, the said Ministry was impleaded as a party.
Senior Advocate Aprajita Singh, appearing for M/s. Cure Foundation of India informed the Court that all parties concerned (Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj, Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Tanwar) have tendered an unconditional apology for their remarks against people suffering from rare genetic disorders and disabilities.
However, Justice Kant remarked that comedian Samay Raina's counter affidavit was almost in the nature of a defence and tried to project himself as an innocent person. "And then he says separately that there is an unconditional apology", added Justice Kant.
Thereafter, Justice Kant asked AGI, "Are you contemplating some guidelines?" To which AGI responded that they are working on guidelines, however, it will take time. AGI further suggested that there cannot be a gag order with regard to such incidents.
With regard to the formulation of guidelines to regulate online content, the Court was of the opinion that one incident cannot be the basis of the entire guidelines and suggested that opinions of stakeholders and domain experts should be invited on the formulation of holistic guidelines.
Justice Kant also expressed his concern with regard to the fact that if the guidelines would be laid by the Supreme Court, then there would be no scope of judicial review.
Later, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, "Humour is definitely well taken. Humour is a part of life and we laugh at ourselves. But, when we start laughing at others and thereby we create a breach of sensibility and not only disability. We are a country of varied communities...when on apartheid pain, humour is generated it becomes problematic. And, this is what so called influencers of today should bear in mind. They are commercialising speech and once they commercialise speech it should also be borne in mind that the community at large should not be used to hurt the sentiments of certain sections."
Later, Singh highlighted the provisions of the Persons with Disability Act, which provides that no person with disability should be discriminated on the ground of disability. "You are being mocked only because of the disability... where is the dignity of the individual?", added Singh.
The Advocate appearing for News Broadcasters and Digital Association submitted that there are some guidelines specifically covering people with disability.
Subsequently, Advocate Kushal Mor, appearing on behalf of Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Tanwar, informed the Court that they are present in person as per the orders and had tendered an unconditional apology.
Upon which, Justice Kant asked, "How much penalty should be imposed on you?"
Singh suggested that the penalty imposed should be used for the benefit of disabled people. "These persons are influencers, what they say matters. They influence an entire generation...Let them offer to spread awareness about the issue and that would be the best apology that they can give...Let them use their influence to take forward the issue", Singh submitted.
Adding to these submissions, Mor agreed that the parties will carry out such activities on their social media platforms.
Justice Kant asked the parties involved to display an unconditional apology on the social media platforms as well. "Let us also know your capacity to bear the cost, the penalty", said Justice Kant.
"Each one of them shall place their unconditional apology on podcast and other channels and their YouTube channels", the Court recorded in its Order.
The Bench also dispensed with the appearance of Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Tanwar, subject to their compliance of the above directions.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter till November.
Background
The Writ Petitions were filed by YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani seeking clubbing and quashing of FIRs against them in connection with India’s Got Talent. Podcaster Allahbadia's remarks on parents and sex on comedian Samay Raina's YouTube show 'India's Got Talent' triggered a controversy, and several FIRs have been lodged against him and others in various parts of the country.
On July 15, the Supreme Court while discussing the scope of guidelines for regulating the content on online media, observed that the rights under Article 19 cannot overpower the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also observed that in the event of any competition between Articles 19 and 21, Article 21 must prevail over Article 19.
On February 18, the Apex Court granted interim protection from arrest to Allahbadia and Chanchalani while calling his comments "vulgar" and saying he had "dirty mind" which put the society to shame.
Cause Title: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025] and Ashish Anil Chanchlani v. State of Guwahati [W.P.(Crl.) No. 85/2025]