The Supreme Court requires regulatory measures on online content in the Ranveer Allahabadia case
Last Updated on March 4, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 3) extended the scope of the Ranveer Allahabadia case to deliberate the need for a mechanism to regulate vulgar content on YouTube and other online media.
A bench composed of Judge Surya Kant and Judge NK Singh urged the government of the Union to present a regulation draft, which can be placed in the public domain to invite the suggestions of the interested parties.
The observation in order:
“With regard to the transmission or transmission of programs that are not acceptable in terms of the known moral standards of our society, some regulatory measures may be required. We have suggested the Attorney General of India to deliberate and suggest regulatory measures that cannot be imposed […] on the relevant law of the expression and expression of any time, but at the same time, which are also effective to guarantee the parameters of such funds.
The crucial development occurred in the petition presented by Youtuber & Podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia against the multiple signs presented the crime of obscenity on the comments made by him in the program “India Got Latent”. Two weeks ago, while issuing a notice about the petition, the court had expressed a strong disapproval of the nature of the language used in the program and impressed to the Government of the Union the need to have a regulatory measure.
Today, the bench raised the problem Judge Surya Kant said that a regulatory measure was necessary that does not lead to “censorship. “We do not want any regulatory regime that leads to censorship … but it cannot be free for all platforms. Just because it has commercial interests, it cannot be that you can say anything. See the quality of humor it has, Humor is something that the whole family can enjoy, nobody feels ashamed. Using all dirty language is not talent,” Judge Surya Kant said.
The Attorney General of India, Tushar Mehta, agreed with the opinion of the bench. He said that a methodology is required to be established, which does not avoid the freedom of expression of someone unfairly, but at the same time retains the standards of decency and morality.
“Free expression must be protected, but vulgarity and perversity should not reach our children,” said SG. He added that if a person has to use vulgarity to make someone laugh, it just means that he is not a good comedian.
