Supreme Court calls for independent, effective regulator for social media content: 'Somebody has to be accountable'

The observation came as the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi continued hearing matters linked to the 'India’s Got Latent' controversy, in which YouTubers including Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina were named in multiple FIRs.

The Supreme Court on Thursday signalled that stronger oversight of user-uploaded online material may be imminent, telling the Central Government that “somebody has to be accountable” for what circulates on social media platforms, calling for a “neutral, independent and autonomous” regulator.

The observation came as the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi continued hearing matters linked to the 'India’s Got Latent' controversy, in which YouTubers including Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina were named in multiple FIRs.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the concerns raised before the Court go well beyond problematic humour. Calling it “perversion,” he told the bench that such behaviour exposed a gap in the regulatory framework surrounding user-generated content. “Freedom of speech is an invaluable right, but it cannot lead to perversity,” he said.

CJI Kant said that digital creators essentially operate without any external checks. “So I create my own channel, I am not accountable to anyone...somebody has to be accountable!” he said, questioning how such a vacuum existed when millions consume this content instantly.

Justice Bagchi added that once “scurrilious material is uploaded, by the time the authorities react, it has gone viral,” raising doubts about whether existing mechanisms are capable of responding quickly enough.

The conversation shifted to content flagged as offensive or allegedly harmful to national interest. “Where the content is perceived as anti-national. Will the content creator take responsibility for?” Justice Bagchi asked.

Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a professor with disabilities who wanted to be part of the broader discussion, cautioned the Court about the dangers of relying on such terminology, pointing out that the tag “anti-national” is vague and could be misused to silence critics.

When he offered examples relating to academic work or vaccine discussions, Mehta objected, telling him, “You are instigating, do not give these examples.”

The bench said that it was trying to identify a workable model. CJI Kant suggested that a “neutral, independent and autonomous” regulator -- one not shaped by the industry or the state -- might be necessary. “Self styled bodies will not help,” he said, expressing dissatisfaction with the current approach of platform-led oversight.

Justice Bagchi supported a structured system that could include experts from different fields, including the judiciary and the media.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation, pointed out to the Court that online platforms were already operating under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, despite parts of those rules being under challenge.

He noted that a panel headed by Justice (Retired) Gita Mittal reviews complaints and that OTT platforms continue to classify and label content on their own.

But the Court was unconvinced, asking why repeated violations surfaced if self-regulation was functioning properly. CJI Kant stated that disclaimers shown at the start of programmes were ineffective and briefly mentioned the possibility of stronger age-verification measures.

The SG Mehta informed the Court that some remarks in 'India’s Got Latent' were so offensive he could not repeat them.

The bench directed the Centre to release draft guidelines for public consultation and posted the matter for further consideration after four weeks.

It replaced the term “preventive mechanism” in its order with “effective mechanism” after Sibal warned that the earlier phrase could imply pre-censorship. “We will not put our seal of approval on something which can gag somebody. We will only address the vaccum,” the CJI said.

Samay Raina’s case also resurfaced during the hearing. Representing Cure SMA Foundation, an organisation supporting persons with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh said her community had been “ridiculed and humiliated” on a widely viewed platform.

Raina’s donation of Rs 2.5 lakh, she said, was not what they sought. “We are here for our dignity," she said.

The Court asked Raina to consider hosting a show highlighting their achievements. “They don’t want your money. They want dignity and respect,” the bench told him, while also suggesting that the government consider a stringent law “on the same lines like SC/ST Act” to penalise demeaning remarks.