SC asks Samay Raina, other influencers to appear over alleged remarks ‘ridiculing' disabled
The court termed the influencers' conduct as 'damaging' and 'demoralising' and said some serious remedial and punitive action was needed so that these things don't happen again.
New Delhi, May 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday directed five social media influencers, including 'India's Got Latent' host Samay Raina, to appear before it or face coercive action after a plea alleged that they ridiculed persons having a rare disorder Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and those suffering from disability on their show.
The bench asked the Mumbai Commissioner of Police to serve notice on the five influencers to ensure their presence in the court, failing which coercive action will be taken.
Justice Surya Kant said that though after this order a lot of people raising the issue of fundamental rights will start writing articles but the court knows how to deal with these issues.
Earlier this year, Raina was booked by Maharashtra and Assam police over derogatory comments on his YouTube show 'India's Got Latent' along with podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia.
On February 18, the top court granted interim protection from arrest to Allahbadia while calling his comments 'vulgar' and saying he had 'dirty mind' which put society to shame. Aside from Allahbadia and Raina, others named in the case in Assam are comics Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh and Apoorva Makhija.
The apex court order on Monday came on a plea of an NGO alleging that the influencers have ridiculed persons having a rare disorder SMA and those suffering from disability on their show.
'The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai is directed to serve notice on respondent nos.6 to 10 and ensure their presence in court on the next date of hearing, failing which coercive steps will be taken against them to secure their presence,' the bench ordered.
The bench also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani on the PIL of NGO 'Cure SMA Foundation of India' for direction on regulating social media content concerning disabled people and persons with rare disorders.
'Having regard to the sensitivity and importance of the issue raised by the petitioner-Foundation, we request the learned Attorney General for India to assist this Court in the matter,' it said.
'This is very, very damaging and demoralising. There are statutes that try to bring these people into the mainstream, and with one incident, the entire effort goes.
'You should think of some remedial and punitive action within the law against those who have indulged in such acts,' the bench told senior advocate Aprajita Singh, appearing for the NGO.
Singh said that in her view this is a case of hate speech, which cannot be allowed under the Constitution.
Besides Raina, the bench issued notice to four other influencers Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar alias Sonali Aditya Desai and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar.
The bench also arrayed the Maharashtra government as a party in the matter and issued notice to it. The top court sought their responses by July 15.
The NGO had referred to the deficiencies in the existing legal framework and urged the bench to formulate guidelines on online content.
'The petitioner seeks to bring to the notice of this court the broadcast of certain online content, media and programmes that are derogatory, offensive, denigrating, ableist or belittling to the persons with disability, or their diseases, or their treatment options,' it said.
The NGO said that it was also aggrieved by the lack of any explicit statutory guidelines to sufficiently–regulate the broadcast of such online content which violates the right to life and dignity of persons with disabilities while transgressing the qualified right of free speech and expression.
'The absence of such explicit provisions qua persons with disability gives rise to a legislative gap since it fails to align with the anti-discrimination and dignity-affirming objectives of the Constitution as well as the RPwD Act, thus being violative of Article 14 and 21,' it said.
It said there is also no sufficient positive obligation on both the government and private actors to adopt a unique standard of representation of persons with disability in the online domain.
'Despite the aforesaid constitutional mandates, there has been a rampant abuse (both conscious and subconscious) of the online media platforms by various individuals and classes, that has resulted in the systematic objectification of persons with disability – thereby, fundamentally undermining their dignity, agency, and their inalienable right to be represented with respect,' it said. PTI MNL RT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Jamie Lever recalls Farah Khan's hilarious reaction to her videos: 'My husband is showing them to our kids'
During the pandemic lockdown, while the entertainment industry was at a standstill, Jamie Lever , the daughter of legendary comedian Johnny Lever, found her moment to shine. Using social media as her stage, she captivated audiences with a series of brilliant and pitch-perfect impersonations of famous personalities like Asha Bhosle, Lata Mangeshkar , and Farah Khan . These viral videos not only established her as a breakout comedian in the digital space but also earned her direct praise from the very celebrities she was impersonating. Here's a closer look at what Jamie Lever said. Jamie Lever on the call changed the game During an open chat on Sapan Verma's YouTube show, Jamie Lever looked back on her rapid journey into viral fame and the surprisingly sweet responses that planned with it. One moment that stands out was, choreographer-filmmaker Farah Khan called Jamie personally during lockdown. Jamie recalled the encounter with infectious laughter as she said that she had just started making videos when she got a morning call from Farah Khan. She said, 'Hello Jamie! Listen, what are you doing yaar? Please send me those videos!' Jamie didn't even recognize her voice at first and asked, 'Who is this?' Then Farah said, 'My husband is showing my kids your videos and telling them, this is exactly how your mother talks!' She went on to compliment Jamie. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like TV providers are furious: this gadget gives you access to all channels Techno Mag Learn More Undo The episode not only served as validation from an industry insider but also marked a surreal checkpoint in Jamie's career, a reminder that even light-hearted mimicry can open doors to genuine admiration. Jamie Lever on the voice that she will never forget One of the most treasured moments in Jamie Lever's comedic journey was receiving an earnest phone call from none other than Lata Mangeshkar; a moment that Jamie reflects on with great honour and emotion. Jamie remembers Lena praising her mimicry, saying, "The way you mimic your father, it is just too good. And Asha is my sister; you imitate her very well too." Jamie closed the call with blessings by Lata; words that Jamie cherishes, a wonderful moment of artistic acknowledgement across generations. Jamie Lever on swapping corporate cubicles for a spotlight in comedy Before stepping into the world of entertainment full-time, Jamie Lever walked a more conventional path which was working as a Marketing Executive at a market research firm based in London, but the pull of performance proved stronger than spreadsheets. In 2012, she took the best step into comedy at 'The Comedy Store' where she could very much embrace the uncertainty of doing live stand-up. That allowed her to step into consistent and numerous opportunities as well as become a part of projects such as 'Kis Kisko Pyaar Karoon,' 'Housefull 4,' 'Bhoot Police,' and 'Pop Kaun?,' making the full transition between corporate calm and comic chaos.
