In a significant observation shaping the future of India’s digital content ecosystem, the Supreme Court on November 27, 2025, held that the current self-regulation model for online platforms is insufficient, stressing the need for a neutral, independent, and autonomous body to regulate obscene, offensive or illegal content on the internet.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these remarks while hearing petitions filed by podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia and others challenging FIRs relating to alleged obscene content in the podcast show “India’s Got Latent.” The matter has since been expanded to address broader concerns over online obscenity, user-generated content (UGC), and regulatory gaps for digital platforms.
Context of the Case: FIRs Against Content Creators and Larger Questions on Online Obscenity
The case originated from FIRs lodged against podcasters and creators for allegedly obscene material in their show. However, the Supreme Court broadened the scope of the issue, signalling concerns over:
- The increasing volume of explicit, offensive or socially harmful digital content,
- The lack of uniform regulatory standards for platforms and independent creators, and
- The inability of existing self-regulatory bodies to curb violations.
The Union Government, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, informed the Court that new guidelines were being drafted after consultations with stakeholders. SG Mehta underscored that the problem is not limited to “obscenity” but also involves “perversity” in user-generated content on platforms such as YouTube and other independent channels.
“I Create My Own Channel and Am Accountable to No One?” – CJI Surya Kant
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant openly questioned the absence of any regulatory framework for independent creators:
“So I create my own channel, and I am not accountable to anyone… somebody has to be accountable!”
The CJI highlighted that while freedom of speech is indispensable in a democratic society, it cannot extend to content that harms public morality, infringes rights of vulnerable groups, or spreads harmful material.
He emphasised that millions of viewers, including children and marginalised communities, are exposed to unvetted content that may humiliate, insult, or mislead.
Union Government’s Response: Draft Guidelines Under Consultation
The Attorney General and Solicitor General told the Court:
- New regulatory guidelines have been formulated,
- Stakeholder consultations are underway, and
- The framework will cover both platform-based publishers (OTT, digital news media) and individual creators producing UGC.
SG Mehta linked the issue to perversity, noting that user-generated content has little to no oversight—a significant concern in the era of viral online material.
Existing Self-Regulation Under IT Rules, 2021: OTT Platforms Defend the Model
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation (IBDF)—comprising major OTT platforms like Netflix—argued that a regulatory mechanism already exists under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
He stated that:
- OTT platforms label content appropriately,
- Provide age classifications,
- Follow the Digital Media Ethics Code,
- And have a self-regulatory appellate body headed by Justice (Retd.) Gita Mittal.
However, the Court remained unconvinced.
Court’s View: Self-Regulation Has Not Prevented Violations
CJI Surya Kant expressed strong reservations about the effectiveness of self-regulation:
“Self-styled bodies will not help… Some neutral, autonomous body free from the influence of those who exploit all of this—and the State—also is needed.”
The bench questioned why violations continue despite the presence of a self-regulatory framework, noting that:
- Content with obscenity continues to proliferate,
- Instances of irresponsible digital content are increasing,
- And warning labels or disclaimers are often inadequate or ineffective.
Justice Bagchi: Self-Regulation Fails When Content Goes Viral Instantly
Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed to the speed at which digital content spreads, creating enforcement challenges:
“Once the scurrilous material is uploaded, by the time the authorities react, it has gone viral to millions of viewers… so how do you control that?”
He also flagged the issue of creators producing content that may be anti-national or socially disruptive:
“Where the content is perceived as anti-national or disruptive to society’s norms, will the creator take responsibility? Will self-regulation be sufficient?”
Concerns About Vagueness of “Anti-National” – Prashant Bhushan Responds
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a disability rights activist, cautioned the Court against vague terms like “anti-national”, stating:
- The term is prone to misuse,
- Critics of the government could be unfairly targeted, and
- Clear definitions are essential for any regulatory framework.
Justice Bagchi acknowledged the concern but added:
“Suppose there is a video which falsely shows that a part of India is not India—what do you do then?”
CJI Surya Kant on Rights of the Poor and Marginalised
The CJI also highlighted the disproportionate impact of harmful online content on vulnerable groups:
“If you allow everything to be aired… there are millions and millions of victims of these kinds of insults and humiliation. What will you do?”
The Court signalled that the rights of viewers, especially the marginalised, must remain central to any regulatory policy.
Key Legal Issues Emerging From the Hearing
1. Balance Between Free Speech and Regulation
The Court stressed that while Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) allow regulation to curb obscenity, defamation, and threats to public order.
2. Accountability of Digital Content Creators
Independent creators currently operate without a defined statutory framework, raising questions of:
- Liability,
- Oversight,
- Content classification,
- And complaint redressal.
3. Need for Statutory, Not Voluntary, Regulation
The Court is leaning toward:
- A statutory regulator,
- Independent of OTT platforms, creators, and the government,
- Empowered to act swiftly.
Implications: A New Era of Digital Content Regulation?
The Supreme Court’s observations could lead to:
1. Creation of a New Independent Digital Media Regulatory Authority
Similar to statutory broadcasting regulators in the UK and Australia.
2. Mandatory Guidelines for All Content Producers
Covering OTT platforms, YouTube creators, podcasters, influencers, etc.
3. Faster Takedown Mechanisms
To curb viral spread of harmful content.
4. Clear Definitions of Obscenity, Perversity, and Anti-National Content
To avoid misuse and ensure consistency.
5. Greater Accountability for Content Affecting Public Morality or Marginalised Groups
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s remark that self-regulation for online media is ineffective marks a pivotal moment in India’s digital governance landscape. The bench’s call for a neutral, autonomous regulatory body reflects growing concern over unregulated content, viral obscenity, and the potential harm to society—especially vulnerable communities.
As the Union Government works on new guidelines, this case could shape the future architecture of online content regulation in India—balancing free speech with accountability, technological growth with public protection, and creative freedom with social responsibility.
