Will SC's push for online content rules bring clarity or stifle free speech?
Multiple benches of the court, while hearing different cases on 15 July involving comedians and influencers, stressed the need for clear guidelines to curb objectionable content while protecting Constitutional rights.
The apex court's directive has left content creators divided. While some welcome the move, hoping it will define clear boundaries for permissible online behaviour and reduce legal uncertainties and arbitrary measures, others fear it could threaten their creative freedom and lead to self-censorship.
'I'm open to guidelines that promote responsible content creation without stifling creative expression. As a roast comedy content creator, I already self-censor to avoid offence, but clarity on what's acceptable would help," said Shivamsingh Rajput, a Surat-based YouTuber who has close to 10.5 million subscribers across his five YouTube channels.
'A content classification system would be great. It would let audiences choose what they watch and take the pressure off creators. Dark humour has its audience worldwide and I believe India could benefit from a more open approach. This would allow our content economy to grow and evolve," Rajput added.
Rohan Cariappa, a Bangalore-based creator who creates short comedy skits on Instagram and content about India's growing hip-hop and rap culture on YouTube, expresses skepticism on executing such guidelines. He has close to 500,000 followers across platforms.
'The idea of having a set of guidelines for creators doesn't sound bad to me, but the real problem lies in the execution. With the kind of population and the number of creators we have in this country, it is really difficult to fast-track anything," Cariappa highlighted, adding that as per the latest data, India is home to over 8 million active content creators.
'I also fear that such rules can be misused to arm-twist creators with different ideologies and affinities, be they religious, political, or any other kind. I have personally faced this when a comedy video of mine attracted a legal notice last year after a few complaints and my phone was confiscated only for the case to be quashed by the court later. People have also tended to try to pull down creators who have grown very fast. So, as much as the proposal sounds good, I am unsure whether it is feasible given the size of our community and country," Cariappa further added.
The influencer marketing industry in India is expected to grow to ₹3,375 crore in 2026 from ₹2,344 crore last year, as per EY data reported by Mint earlier.
The fresh debate on the creation of such guidelines for creators began with India's Got Latent controversy, where Cure SMA India Foundation accused five stand-up comedians, including Samay Raina, of making insensitive remarks about persons with disabilities.
While hearing a plea, Justice Surya Kant verbally asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to draft guidelines in consultation with stakeholders to ensure they align with Constitutional principles.
'What we would like is guidelines in conformity with Constitutional principles, balancing freedom and the limits of that freedom where rights and duties start. We want it to be comprehensive and debated openly," remarked Justice Kant.
Justice Kant clarified that Article 21 (right to live with human dignity) of Indian Constitution overrides Article 19 (freedom of speech), especially in cases involving insensitive comments against vulnerable groups.
On the same day, another bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Vishwanathan discussed ways to curb 'divisive tendencies" on social media while hearing West Bengal-based Wazahat Khan's plea to club FIRs against him for posts on Hindu deities. The bench called for detailed deliberations to frame guidelines that balance objectionable content with Constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, a third bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar expressed concern over the tendency of citizens to post 'anything and everything" online while hearing cartoonist Hemant Malviya's plea for protection against a case filed for posting a 'revolting" cartoon on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
'What is happening today is people say and write all kinds of things without caring about the language they use online and on their shows," Justice Dhulia remarked.
Mint spoke to lawyers practising technology law in India's top courts. They noted that the court's discussions and the government's plan to bring new rules align with existing laws like the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, they cautioned that new rules should not create vague or subjective definitions for terms like vulgarity and obscenity, as this could lead to misuse.
'The Intermediary Guidelines to follow already define such content under existing law to allow takedown. New rules shouldn't create separate or vague standards that risk curbing legitimate online expression," said Sidhant Kumar Marwah, Partner at Unum Law.
The guidelines mentioned by Marwah refer to The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 that are a set of rules that require digital intermediaries such as YouTube, X, Instagram and Facebook to respond to user grievances expeditiously and remove harmful content.
Nakul Gandhi, founding partner of NG Law Chambers, said the framework must begin by recognising that freedom of expression is deeply subjective.
'What's vulgar to one may be satire to another. The danger lies in converting personal offence into legal prohibition. Instead of rigid definitions, the law should focus on principled thresholds, such as: Does the content incite violence? Does it exploit or endanger a specific group? These are measurable parameters. But matters of taste, tone, or personal offence should remain outside the scope of legal sanction."
Lawyers also stressed the need for safeguards under new rules to prevent arbitrary takedowns by platforms.
According to Ankit Sahni, partner at Ajay Sahni & Associates, any government takedown request must have a written order with legal grounds and give creators a chance to respond. 'Transparency reports, time-bound reviews, and oversight by an independent grievance body can build trust."
Marwah from Unum Law suggested setting up an independent regulatory body manned by experts, similar to the UK's Online Safety Act, to issue takedown orders based on clear, well-defined standards.
However, legal experts warned of what overregulation can do.
'Vague or broad rules may stifle creativity, comedy, and critical commentary. Guidelines must be clear, transparent, and proportionate to protect free expression," noted Anupam Shukla, technology law and privacy practice at Pioneer Legal.
Gandhi from NG Law Chambers further cautions that 'the direction seems more cautionary than empowering for creators. Seen in that light, moves towards broad guidelines, without any defined limits, risk becoming tools against creators, especially the independent ones who don't have the backing of big platforms or studios."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
9 minutes ago
- India Today
Court slams police for insisting on identity disclosure in minor's abortion case
The Bombay High Court has permitted a medical practitioner to carry out the termination of the pregnancy of a minor girl without disclosing her identity, pulling up the police for continuing to insist on such disclosure despite clear judicial rulings to the contrary.A bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing a petition filed by a gynecologist on behalf of a minor who had become pregnant following a consensual relationship. The doctor sought court permission to perform the abortion, as the pregnancy was at 13 weeks — well within the legal limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 — while maintaining the minor's Meenaz Kakalia, representing the petitioner, argued that forcing the disclosure of the minor's identity would breach her right to privacy and reproductive autonomy, both protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. She cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of the MTP Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, asserting that registered medical practitioners are not required to reveal the identity of minors even while submitting mandatory POCSO reports. While granting the requested relief, the High Court expressed concern that medical professionals still felt compelled to seek judicial intervention in such cases due to ongoing pressure from police authorities.'We are quite surprised that, despite the clear finding of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, repeatedly holding that in the facts of such cases, the identity of the minor girl need not be insisted upon to be revealed, the Doctors concerned are compelled to approach this Court for such permissions as the Police insist upon the doctors to reveal the name and identity of the minor victims. This is nothing but harassment of the doctors as well as the minor victims,' the bench prevent further violations and ensure consistent application of the law, the Court directed that a copy of its order, along with the relevant Supreme Court ruling, be circulated to all police stations across Maharashtra. The order is also to be sent to the Director General of Police to ensure enforcement and avoid future infringements on the rights of minor victims and medical professionals.- EndsMust Watch
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Uploading Burnt Cash Video Doesnt Mean Process Is Vitiated: Top Court To Justice Verma
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed with Justice Yashwant Varma's submission that the video of burnt wads of currency notes found at his residence should not have been uploaded on the apex court website. However, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said just because tapes have been published on the website, it does not mean the process is vitiated and Justice Varma can go "scot-free". The top court said the impeachment proceedings will be held independently in the Parliament, without reference to the in-house report. On the question of delay in approaching the top court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for Justice Varma, said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged. "Tape was released. It was already released, my reputation already damaged. What would I come to court for?" Sibal said. Justice Datta remarked, "We are with you on this for the time being. It should not have been done." However, Justice Datta said, "It does not mean that there has been some lapse in the procedure, which affects the powers of the Parliament to take action against you, because Parliament, I need not to say with any emphasis, it has its own powers. "Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what judiciary says or what CJI recommends. They are supposed to act independently and if, at all, Parliament admits the motion and if an inquiry committee is set up, you know who can be the members of the committee. "Do you think those members, people of high calibre, would be influenced by preliminary report where you will have whole opportunity to demolish what are the findings," he said. The top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. In an unprecedented move, the top court on Mach 22 uploaded on its website an in-house inquiry report, including photos and videos, into the discovery of a huge stash of cash at the residence of Justice Varma who was then Delhi High Court judge. The report contains photos and videos of the cash discovered at a storeroom at Justice Varma's house during a firefighting operation on the night of Holi, March 14.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Top Court Declines To Defer Framing Of Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav In Land-For-Job Scam
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to direct a Delhi trial court to defer proceedings on the framing of charges against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad in the alleged land-for-job scam case. In his latest application before the top court, Lalu Prasad Yadav sought a direction to the trial court to postpone proceedings until August 12, when his petition seeking quashing of the FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is scheduled for hearing before the Delhi High Court. Refusing to issue any directions, a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh remarked that the petition pending before the Delhi High Court would not turn "infructuous" even if the trial court proceeds to frame charges. It added that the trial court proceedings, including the framing of charges, are naturally subject to the outcome of the quashing petition pending before the Delhi High Court. Earlier, on July 18, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench had refused to stay the trial proceedings against Lalu Prasad Yadav, observing that it would not retain such a small matter for its own consideration and that the Delhi High Court should decide his plea. Lalu Prasad Yadav moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the top court after the Delhi HC had rejected his application to stay the trial proceedings based on the charge sheets filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In his application before the Delhi High Court, the former Railway Minister argued that no police officer can investigate offences allegedly committed by a public servant where the offence is related to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of his public functions without approval of the competent authority. He contended that the registration of the FIR without such approval was illegal, rendering all subsequent actions - including the investigation, filing of charge sheets, and cognisance taken by the trial court - void ab initio (from the very beginning). After hearing the submissions, the Delhi High Court had granted liberty to Lalu Prasad Yadav to urge all his contentions before the trial court at the stage of framing of the charge and dismissed his plea seeking a stay on trial proceedings in the land-for-job case, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. As per the CBI case registered on May 18, 2022, during the period between 2004-2009, then Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav had obtained pecuniary advantages in the form of transfer of landed property in the name of his family members in lieu of appointment of substitutes in Group 'D' posts in different Zones of the Railways. Several people themselves or through their family members, allegedly sold or gifted their land in favour of the family members of Lalu Prasad Yadav and a private company controlled by him and his family. "No advertisement or any public notice was issued for such appointment of substitutes in Zonal Railways, yet the appointees, who were residents of Patna, were appointed as substitutes in different Zonal Railways located in Mumbai, Jabalpur, Kolkata, Jaipur and Hajipur," the CBI had said.
