SC Summons Samay Raina, Other Comedians Over Alleged Remarks On Disabilities
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi allowed comedian Sonali Thakkar, also known as Sonali Aditya Desai, to appear virtually during the next hearing.
The apex court recorded the presence of Raina, Goyal, Tanwar, Ghai, and Thakkar and directed them to file their replies to the petition within two weeks.
They all appeared before the apex court today in pursuant to court's earlier order.
The bench made it clear that no extension will be granted beyond this period and warned that any absence on the next date of hearing will be viewed seriously.
The apex court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines while balancing the freedom of speech and expression and the rights and duties of others.
Venkataramani sought time to assist the court on the issue and said the enforceability of guidelines would require detailed consideration.
"What we are doing is for posterity. You have to ensure that not a single word is misused by anyone. You have to ensure balance. We have to protect citizens' rights. A framework must be there that the dignity of anyone is not violated," the bench said.
#WATCH | Delhi | Comedian Samay Raina arrives in the Supreme Court, to appear before the court in the matter related to allegedly mocking persons with disabilities. pic.twitter.com/YFJCDdxQ6c — ANI (@ANI) July 15, 2025
The top court was hearing a petition filed by M/s Cure SMA Foundation seeking a prohibition on the broadcast of derogatory and denigrating content on the digital media against persons with disability. It also sought the formulation of guidelines to safeguard the rights and dignity of persons with disability in the context of the broadcasting of online content.
On May 5, the bench had summoned the comedians to appear before it or face coercive action after the plea alleged that they ridiculed persons suffering from SMA, a rare disorder, and also those suffering from other disabilities on their show.
The top court had also issued notice to the Union of India through the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting, Electronics and Information Technology, Social Justice and Empowerment, and News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation.
The NGO brought to the notice of the court the broadcast of certain online content, media and programmes that are derogatory, offensive, denigrating, ableist or belittling to persons with disability, or their diseases, or their treatment options.
The petitioner 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.
It asked the court to put a positive obligation on both the government and private actors to adopt a unique standard of representation of persons with disability in the online domain.
The NGO accused Raina of insensitive remarks on persons with such conditions, high-costing drugs and treatment options for Spinal Muscular Atrophy and also alleged to have ridiculed a person with disability.
It flagged videos where he made comments on persons with disabilities.
The petition said these comedians are public figures and enjoy a following of millions of viewers/users on various social media intermediaries.
"The petitioner is concerned by certain live and pre-recorded event videos of these individuals, due to their offensive, denigrating and dehumanising representation of persons with disabilities," the petition said.
"These videos shed light on the widespread irresponsible, insensitive and violate dissemination of such online content that contravenes the rightsof the persons with disability under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, propels offensive stereotypes and misguided portrayals against them, and detrimentally impacts their societal participation, and fosters insensitivity and inhumanity against them, and as such falls within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)," said the petition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
Last Updated: The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru. The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds". The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals. The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence. Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution". Liberty to Seek Pardon While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case. 'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made. What Happened? According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan. The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital. While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court. In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation. 'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders. Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request. The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency. Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
As Assam CM defends eviction drives, Opposition sniffs ploy to clear space for corporate houses
Jiten Gohain is the head of one of 218 families evicted during a drive the authorities in Assam's Lakhimpur district carried out on July 3 to reclaim 78 acres of Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) land across four locations. On July 8, the district's Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee approved the allotment of 1.5 kathas (4,320 sq. ft) of land each to 21 families evicted, in one of the fastest such exercises. Among them were 12 belonging to the Ahom community, which is seeking Scheduled Tribe status, to which Mr. Gohain belongs. District Commissioner Pronab Jit Kakoty said the eviction drive was conducted following 'due process'. He said the affected families, which failed to produce land ownership documents, were served notices on June 29. 'I had a larger plot from where we were evicted, but the government has at least provided some space,' Mr. Gohain said. Abul Hasan Sheikh, one of some 200-odd Bengali-speaking Muslim families evicted from Lakhimpur, is not sure if the government would be equally 'generous' to provide him an alternative plot. He is originally a resident of western Assam's South Salmara-Mankachar district along the border with Bangladesh. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma named him and at least a dozen others from faraway districts – most of them Muslim-majority – to underline the alleged 'agenda of demographic invasion by strategically occupying lands in areas dominated by indigenous communities'. 'An analysis has revealed that the families evicted from Lakhimpur included 76 from Barpeta, 63 from Nagaon, seven from Goalpara, and two from South Salmara-Mankachar. Why should someone from South Salmara go to Lakhimpur instead of going to West Bengal, about 50 km away?' Mr. Sarma told reporters on Tuesday. 'Voter list deletions' The Chief Minister said more than 50,000 people have been evicted from 'protected areas, wetlands, VGR and PGR (Professional Grazing Land), government khas (land owned by the government that has not been settled) and wasteland, and those belonging to satras (Vaishnav monasteries) and namghars (prayer halls)' over the past few weeks. According to the State's Revenue and Disaster Management Department, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1986, the Land Policy of 1989, and a 2011 Supreme Court judgment mandate protection of government and village common lands. It also cites the violation of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act of 2010 as a punishable offence. After the BJP came to power in Assam in May 2016, the first eviction drive was carried out in three fringe villages of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. Two persons, including a minor girl, were killed during the eviction based on a Gauhati High Court order in September 2016. 'Most of those evicted are listed as voters in places from where they came. We have asked the authorities from where they were evicted to delete their names from the electoral rolls to eliminate duplicate names,' Mr. Sarma said. Citing the case of the 12 Ahom families, the All Assam Minority Students' Union has demanded rehabilitation for the evicted Muslim families. It claimed many people had lands they were evicted from before these were declared as reserve forests. The Opposition parties have criticised the eviction drive for disproportionately targeting the minority communities. 'The Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission should take note of the eviction during the court holidays in Assam to target poor Muslims. The government must first provide adequate rehabilitation and only then undertake eviction,' All India United Democratic Front MLA Rafiqul Islam said. 'The BJP government has been projecting the evicted people as Bangladeshi. The government provided a compensation package of ₹14.72 crore to 332 families evicted from Kaziranga. People evicted [in 2021] for the Gorukhuti project [Darrang district] were compensated and given land in the Dalgaon area. Why is the government doing so if these people are Bangladeshi?' Congress leader and advocate Aman Wadud said. Others pointed out that the Dhubri district administration has asked 1,400 families displaced from Chapar town, reportedly to make space for a thermal power plant by the Adani Group, to relocate to a sandbar in the middle of the Brahmaputra river. 'Politics of polarisation' 'The eviction is being carried out for two reasons. Firstly, they want to clear land for corporate houses. Secondly, evicting minorities paves the way for the politics of polarisation... so that the Hindu voters back the BJP, especially in eastern Assam, where it is facing challenges,' Raijor Dal MLA Akhil Gogoi said. Lurinjyoti Gogoi, the chief of Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), said eviction drives are a form of the tried-and-tested ploy of weaponising the 'Bangladeshi issue' before the poll. The Assembly poll in Assam is due by May 2026. 'The Chief Minister claims he is doing everything for the indigenous people. In reality, more tribal families have been evicted than the Muslims. In Karbi Anglong, 20,000 Adivasi, Karbi, and Naga families have been evicted to hand over 18,000 bighas of land to the Reliance Group,' the AJP leader claimed. In Assam, one bigha is equivalent to 14,400 sq. ft. He also cited 9,000 bighas of land 'to be handed over to the Adani Group' in Dima Hasao district, 45 bighas 'taken away' from the Adivasis for a hotel project near Kaziranga, and 75 bighas for a Patanjali project in the Golaghat district. 'It is evident why the government is on a land acquisition spree. Of the 49,000 bighas cleared, only 6,000 bighas were under the occupation of the religious minorities,' the AJP leader said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Compromising cases by sharing comunidade land illegal, says SC
Margao: In a major blow to the practice of comunidades to settle court cases with tenants through the sharing of disputed land, the Supreme Court has held that such arrangements violate both the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, effectively circumventing statutory protections for agricultural land. The SC, in its judgment delivered on Monday, dismissed an appeal by the comunidade of Tivim, upholding a lower court's decision to deny permission for a proposed 60:40 land-sharing compromise with agricultural tenants. The verdict of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said that the proposed compromise terms 'fall foul of both the statutes' — the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The court said that such arrangements create 'freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant'. The arrangements, the SC said, allow parties to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, which is 'expressly barred by the Land Use Act'. The dispute arose over two properties, Oiteil-De-Madel and Levelechy Aradi, belonging to the comunidade of Tivim, which were leased to tenants in 1978. After the tenants' predecessor was declared an agricultural tenant by a trial court in 2017, the comunidade appealed against the decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the comunidade's general body meeting in March 2021 resolved to compromise by offering a 60:40 land division — 60% to the tenants and 40% to be retained by the comunidade. However, the administrative tribunal denied permission for this compromise under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, which requires the tribunal's approval for any compromise involving comunidades. The high court upheld this decision, which was subsequently challenged in the SC. The apex court observed that the proposed compromise constituted an 'abuse of the process of law'. The court said that the consent terms effectively granted 'full ownership rights' to both parties and allowed them to use the land 'for any purpose whatsoever', directly violating statutory restrictions. Justice Dhulia, writing for the bench, observed that the compromise would 'wipe out tenancy rights' that were legally declared by the trial court and bypass the specific procedures laid down in the Tenancy Act for the termination of tenancy and purchase of land by tenants.
