The Supreme Court today said that people who upload content on social media cannot escape responsibility, and there must be someone answerable when harmful or misleading content spreads online. The comments came during a hearing linked to India’s Got Latent case, which recently drew attention to YouTubers like Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the issue goes beyond obscenity. He said user-generated content often contains “perversion,” adding, “Freedom of speech is an invaluable right, but it cannot lead to perversity.”

Chief Justice Surya Kant also raised concerns over people creating their own channels without any oversight. “This is the problem, so I create my own channel, I am not accountable to anyone... somebody has to be accountable,” he said.

The bench also discussed content seen as “anti-national.” Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked, “Where the content is perceived as anti-national. Will the content creator take responsibility for?”

He explained how harmful content spreads before authorities can react: “The difficulty we are facing is the response time, once the scurrilious material is uploaded, by the time the authorities react, it has gone viral, to millions of viewers, so how do you control that?”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan warned the court that branding content as anti-national can sometimes create bigger problems than it solves.

Justice Bagchi added another example: “Forget shreds of anti-national, supposing there is a video which shows that this part is not part of India, what do you do about that?”

When Bhushan spoke about academic discussions and vaccine safety, Mehta objected, saying, “You are instigating, do not give these examples.”

The Chief Justice then said, “This is why we are pitching for an autonomous body... in this society, the children also have a fundamental right to express.”

The court asked the Centre why such issues were still appearing if a system already existed to watch online content.

It also suggested age-gates and stronger warnings for sensitive videos. Justice Bagchi said there should be alerts for content not suitable for all viewers.

The Chief Justice suggested a stricter check: “The issue is that a disclaimer 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.”

He clarified that these were only examples, not final rules.

The bench added that an autonomous regulatory body could include experts from media, judiciary, and other fields.

“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 bench said.

The court gave the Centre four weeks to come up with clear rules for user-generated content.

The court also discussed the case of comedian Samay Raina, who faced backlash for remarks about people with disabilities. The bench asked if the “children”, meaning Raina and other comics, were “behaving” now.

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh said Raina’s comments had hurt those with Spinal Muscular Atrophy. She said: “All these children are accomplished and highly talented. When such comments are made on a platform such as, it becomes difficult for crowdfunding.”

She said Raina had paid ₹2.5 lakh but added: “But we don't want that. We are here for our dignity.”

The Chief Justice suggested strong laws similar to the SC/ST Act.

“Why don't you think of a very stringent law which is on the same lines like SC/ST Act where there is punishment if you demean them.”

The Solicitor General agreed, saying, “Humour cannot be at the cost of someone's dignity.”

The bench then advised Raina to use his platform positively: “They don't want your money. They want dignity and respect. Use your platform to show their achievements.”