India’s top court moves to regulate comedians and influencers’ speech

This story by Sumit Kumar Singh originally appeared on Global Voices on November 6, 2025.

India’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling on August 25, 2025, involving both comedians and social media influencers. The court directed stand-up comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Nishant Jagdish Tanwar, and Sonali Thakkar to issue public apologies to the complainants for remarks they made in a YouTube video, which critics say mock people with disabilities.

The court was hearing three cases, including two petitions filed by YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani seeking to consolidate multiple First Information Reports (police complaints in India) lodged against them in connection with India’s Got Latent, a reality talent show. The duo stirred controversy over a joke about parents and sex. The third case was a petition filed by M/s SMA Cure Foundation against comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, and Sonali Thakkar.

“Something crazy”

The order, delivered by the Supreme Court of India on August 25, 2025, stemmed from a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 460/2025) filed by the Cure SMA Foundation of India — an advocacy NGO focused on spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a rare genetic disorder that causes severe physical disabilities. The Foundation accused the comedians of mocking people with SMA and other disabilities in an episode of India’s Got Latent on YouTube.

The petition drew attention to the immense cost of SMA treatment — particularly the INR 16 crore (equivalent to USD 1.81 million) gene therapy injection for infants. During the show, comedian Samay Raina referenced a real-life charity campaign to save a two-month-old infant with SMA who required gene therapy. During the show, he described it as “something crazy” happening, and then made a joke that the mother would enjoy the financial windfall of donations over the child’s treatment.

In another instance, Raina was seen speaking with a visually impaired person and asked, “Which of your eyes should I look into?” — a remark some perceived as belittling the contestant’s blindness by mocking their inability to make eye contact.

Regulating content created for commercial purposes

Comedy proponents argue that satire is an important instrument of democracies, while critics allege that some comedians are crossing moral boundaries and social norms. The rise of stand-up comedy and influencer culture in India, amplified by YouTube’s vast reach, has further expanded this debate.

With the latest ruling, the Court has decreed that creators carry added responsibility for content created for commercial purposes.

The Division Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed the government to frame guidelines for regulating digital content. These rules, the Court said, must strike a careful balance between freedom of expression and the dignity of marginalized communities. It further noted that the growing commercialization of digital platforms could have a chilling effect on speech, underscoring the need for new norms to ensure that expression remains responsible — especially when driven by commercial interests.

Judicial directive and constitutional framework

The Supreme Court's decision on August 25, 2025, holds significant social weight in India because it shows how the courts are pushing for more accountability in digital spaces, where critics say stand-up comedians and influencers often blur lines between humor and harm.

The order directly addresses India’s constitutional framework. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, while Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and decency. Article 21 extends this protection to life and personal liberty, which the courts interpret as a right to the dignity of marginalized individuals.

The Court observed that satire and humor are protected, but commercial content that breaches people’s dignity is not protected and could potentially be subject to further regulation. As digital satire becomes more mainstream and platforms like YouTube host increasingly provocative content, this judgment appears to signal a push toward greater caution among creators.

See Also: Supreme Court Seeks Public Apology from India’s Got Latent Host Samay Raina and Others for their Insensitive Remarks Against Disabled People

The August 2025 decision is part of a larger trend of controversies surrounding comedians and free speech in India, where humor has often triggered both public backlash and legal scrutiny.

In 2021, comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested and had shows canceled following allegations of insulting religious sentiments. Similarly, comedian Kunal Kamra faced contempt proceedings for releasing satirical commentary on political leaders, which many viewed as an example of judicial overreach into artistic speech. Earlier, in 2015, the comedy group All India Bakchod (AIB) faced a First Information Report (FIR) over its Knockout roast, and were accused of obscenity and moral indecency, highlighting the enduring tension between satire and social sensibilities.

These incidents, amplified by social media outrage, highlight how difficult it is to navigate free speech in India’s diverse society, where humor can quickly turn into legal or cultural controversy. The latest Supreme Court ruling follows this pattern but shifts the spotlight to the accountability of monetized content, while stressing the need for clearer regulations that prevent overreach and safeguard legitimate expression.

Existing Indian laws on digital content

India’s legal framework governing digital content remains fragmented. The Information Technology Act, 2000, along with the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code, 2021, addresses platform liability merely by mentioning that platforms should take down any illegal content upon notice. Although it is possible to do so on a voluntary basis, false endorsements and influencer advertisements are subject to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and are further guided by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).

Broadcasting and OTT regulations via The Information Technology Rules, 2021, impose restrictions primarily on platforms, not on individual content creators.

With this patchwork approach, there are large gaps in regulation over monetized content that may contain humor, commentary, and commercial promotion. The government was instructed by the Supreme Court to address the regulatory vacuum, noting the inefficiency of a piecemeal regulatory framework in a digital age of rapid innovation.

Mixed reactions to the verdict

Opinions on the verdict have been divided. The Cure SMA Foundation celebrated the result, with their counsel, Aparajita Singh, stating that “good sense has prevailed” when the comedians gave unconditional apologies in the hearing. Conversely, many viewers and social media followers criticized the decision as an instance of embarrassing judicial overreach. They argued that the disabled participants in the episode had engaged in self-deprecating humor by choice, and that such legal interference undermines artistic expression rather than advancing it.

Reactions across India’s media and the public have been split. Mainstream outlets such as The Hindu, Times of India, and India Today praised the ruling for reinforcing sensitivity in an era of increasingly commercialized influencer content. In contrast, The Economic Times and many users on X (formerly Twitter) criticized what they saw as societal hypocrisy, condemning dark comedy created by influencers while tolerating far more explicit material elsewhere.

Analysts of creative freedom have warned of a broader chilling effect. Media lawyer and free speech advocate Apar Gupta, noted in a Storyboard18 article that the judgment could discourage satire and political commentary, as creators may resort to self-censorship to avoid judicial scrutiny in an already litigious online environment.

This is driving creators toward hyper-sensitivity as India has gone mainstream with its digital satire, which is in line with international efforts to censor harmful information without curtailing the democratization of humor and satire. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on a cohesive policy and ethical framework appears well-founded, underscoring that digital freedom and social responsibility must function as complements, not opposites. This balance is based on the preservation of dignity and minimization of harm, which forms the foundation of platforms to coexist with governments and artists, furthering democracy.

(SY)

Suggested Reading: