Supreme Court suggests tougher rules for online content, suggests Aadhaar age checks

Attorney General R Venkataramani said the Centre had proposed some new guidelines.

Appearing for an intervenor, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said the matter involved questions of freedom of speech, and there should be widespread public consultations before finalising it. To which, Venkataramani assured that there will be consultation with the stakeholders.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation, said there is already regulation in the form of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which are under challenge before the Delhi High Court.

Sibal said that even though some provisions have been stayed, OTT platforms like Netflix are voluntarily following the Code. He added that there is also a mechanism under Justice (retired) Gita Mittal to deal with complaints.

‘We need to build a responsible society’

CJI Surya Kant wondered how effective self-regulation has been in addressing the issue, asking why such instances keep recurring if it is indeed working. He stressed the need for an independent mechanism. “Self-styled bodies will not help…. Some neutral autonomous bodies which are free from the influence of those who exploit all of this, and the state also is needed as a regulatory measure,” the CJI said.

On SG Mehta’s submission that there is a lot of perversity, not just obscenity, in the content, CJI Kant said there could be some advance warning.

“Right to speech has to be respected, suppose there is a programme, if it has adult content, so some warning in advance must be there,” said  CJI Surya Kant. “Right to speech has to be protected but see the impact it generates…there should be preventive mechanisms,” said Justice Bagchi.

“The issue is that a warning is given, and the show starts. But by the time you decide not to watch, it starts. The warning can be for a few seconds…then perhaps ask for your Aadhaar card, etc. So that your age can be verified, and then the programme starts.”

CJI Kant said that it was only an illustrative suggestion. “Let something come up on a pilot basis, and if it clogs free speech and expression, it can be looked at then. We need to build a responsible society, and once that happens, most of the problems will be solved,” the CJI added.

With some of the counsels raising concerns about freedom of speech, the bench said it was not in favour of “something which can gag somebody”. “We will be the last ones to suggest regulatory measures if you all come with a measure. You all say that there is this and that association… Then why are such instances occurring at all?” CJI Kant asked.

The court which was also seized of a plea by M/s SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Cure Foundation accusing satirists Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar of cracking insensitive jokes on persons with disabilities (PwDs), asked if there should be laws on the lines of the SC/ST act to deal with such attitude towards persons with disabilities.

“Why don’t you think of a very stringent law which is on the same lines as the SC/ST Act…where there is punishment if you demean them. On the same lines,” the CJI told SG Mehta, who agreed that humour cannot be at the cost of the dignity of others.