New Delhi: In a landmark directive that could reshape India’s digital landscape, the Supreme Court of India has urged the government to establish an impartial and autonomous authority to scrutinize user-generated content on platforms like YouTube and Facebook. This move aims to shield citizens—especially children and vulnerable groups—from obscene, perverse, anti-national, or reputation-damaging online videos that spread virally before platforms can act. The court’s November 27, 2025, hearing highlighted the inadequacies of current self-regulatory mechanisms and proposed innovative solutions like Aadhaar-based age verification for adult content.
The ruling comes amid rising concerns over unchecked online abuse, including vulgar podcasts and insensitive jokes targeting people with disabilities. With Supreme Court guidelines for user-generated content now in the spotlight, this development signals a balanced approach: protecting free speech while installing preventive mechanisms to prevent harm.
Background: From India’s Got Latent Controversy to National Debate
The case originated from petitions filed by popular podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, known as BeerBiceps, and others, challenging multiple FIRs lodged against them for obscene remarks made during comedian Samay Raina’s YouTube show, India’s Got Latent. In March 2025, the apex court had already flagged the need for clearer regulations on such undignified speech.
A parallel plea by the Cure SMA Foundation—representing families of children with Spinal Muscular Atrophy—accused Raina and co-hosts Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar of mocking disabled individuals. This, the foundation argued, derailed crowdfunding efforts for life-saving treatments costing millions. Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the group, underscored how such content inflicts real-world damage on vulnerable communities.
The hearing, presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, exposed deep flaws in the digital ecosystem. CJI Kant remarked that it is strange for anyone to create their own platform and channel without any accountability, emphasizing the need for responsibility in user-generated content.
Court’s Key Directives: Building a ‘Sieve’ for Online Content
The bench rejected reliance on self-styled bodies like the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation, headed by retired Justice Gita Mittal, or the News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority. The court questioned whether there was even a single instance of effective action taken, asking why such incidents keep recurring if these mechanisms truly work.
Instead, it mandated the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to draft comprehensive guidelines on user-generated content within four weeks, following public consultations. These rules would target specific categories of problematic material.
| Content Category | Proposed Regulation | Rationale |
| Obscene/Adult Content | Mandatory Aadhaar or PAN-based age verification before access | Prevents children from viewing; current one-line disclaimers are ineffective |
| Perverse/Anti-National Material | Pre-vetting by autonomous body for prima facie permissible content | Stops viral spread; addresses 48-72 hour takedown delays |
| Disruptive to Societal Values | Accountability for creators and platforms | Ensures no throttling of free speech but creates a sieve |
| Content Mocking Disabilities | Potential stringent laws akin to SC/ST Act | Protects dignity; humor cannot come at others’ expense |
CJI Kant illustrated the age-gate idea by pointing out that a one-line warning followed immediately by the video starts leaves viewers no time to react. He suggested extending warnings to a few seconds, followed by Aadhaar verification, describing it as an illustrative pilot approach. Justice Bagchi stressed the necessity of preventive mechanisms to avoid misinformation that could lead to loss of lives or property.
The court envisioned this autonomous authority as independent from both government and private broadcasters, comprising experts such as judges, lawyers, and technocrats. All proposals must first be placed in the public domain for consultation, with the bench reserving the right to reject any provisions that could gag free speech. CJI Kant assured that the court would not approve measures used to suppress individuals.
Government Response: Updating IT Rules 2021 for AI, Deepfakes, and More
Attorney General R Venkataramani presented a ministry note proposing amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The suggested changes include separate guidelines addressing obscenity in user-generated content, accessibility norms for online curated material, and specific regulations for AI-generated deepfakes.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta underscored the urgency, stating that freedom of speech is valuable but cannot justify perversity and obscenity, especially when young boys and girls have easy access to technology. He highlighted the unregulated nature of user-generated content, noting that anyone can launch a YouTube channel or program without statutory or self-imposed controls.
The Centre also proposed a four-tier content rating system to classify videos upfront.
| Rating | Target Audience | Access Requirements |
| U | All children | Freely accessible |
| U/A | Below 7; 7-13; Above 16 | Age-appropriate warnings |
| A | Strictly adults | Aadhaar/PAN verification + disclaimer |
This system ensures that adult content remains strictly gated while allowing appropriate access for other groups.
Industry Pushback: Free Speech vs. Regulation Tensions
Representatives from the industry voiced significant concerns. Senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation—which includes major OTT platforms like Netflix—argued that the IT Rules 2021 already provide a framework, though they face ongoing legal challenges. Key provisions, including Rule 9(1) on adherence to the Code of Ethics and Rule 9(3) on the three-level grievance redressal mechanism, have been stayed by the Bombay High Court, while the rules as a whole are under review in the Delhi High Court.
Sibal emphasized that the primary gap exists with platforms like YouTube and Facebook, not curated OTT content. He noted that platforms voluntarily comply with the code and that IBDF maintains a self-regulatory body. The bench responded that guidelines applicable to broadcasters must equally apply to intermediaries.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a disabled professor seeking to intervene as a party, cautioned against overly broad guidelines. He pointed to instances where social media accounts were blocked for legitimate dissent against government actions and policies, arguing that such measures could harm the right to freedom of expression. The court acknowledged these risks, committing to a trial-based implementation where problematic provisions could be revisited.
Broader Implications: Toward a Responsible Digital Society
The proceedings laid bare longstanding tensions in content moderation. The audio-visual nature of podcasts and YouTube videos complicates the detection of unlawful or denigrating material compared to text-based posts. Moreover, content often goes viral within hours, far outpacing the standard 48-72 hour takedown windows enforced by platforms.
CJI Kant called for a broader cultural transformation, stating that building a responsible society would resolve most issues. He specifically suggested developing stringent laws for offenses against people with disabilities, modeled on the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Solicitor General Mehta agreed, affirming that humor must not undermine the dignity of others.
For victims of online abuse, the court highlighted the absence of accessible forums for redress. It questioned whether society expects innocent people, once victimized, to individually pursue damages without a dedicated platform for grievances.
What Happens Next? Timeline and Public Role
The court outlined a clear path forward. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting will immediately prepare draft guidelines incorporating the suggested measures. Within the first two weeks, these drafts will be released for stakeholder consultations. In weeks three and four, an expert panel—ideally including judges, lawyers, and technocrats—will review feedback and propose refinements.
Implementation will begin on a pilot basis, with the Supreme Court maintaining oversight to prevent misuse. This structured process directly addresses calls for widespread public input, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Why This Matters for India’s 900M+ Internet Users
As online content regulation in India enters a critical phase, these Supreme Court suggestions on social media could influence global standards. They strike a delicate balance between safeguarding victims’ rights to dignity and safety and preserving creators’ freedom of expression. The focus extends beyond obscene podcasts to encompass deepfake threats and anti-national propaganda.
CJI Kant captured the essence: freedom of speech must be protected, but society and innocent children hold a fundamental right to dignity that demands equal safeguarding.
Stay tuned for developments on Supreme Court UGC guidelines, Aadhaar-based online age verification, and the updated IT rules for 2025. The question remains: can this proposed sieve purify the digital space without silencing legitimate voices? The next court hearing may provide answers.
FAQs
1. What did the Supreme Court direct regarding user-generated content regulation?
The Supreme Court mandated the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to draft guidelines within four weeks after public consultations. It proposed an impartial autonomous authority—independent from government and private platforms—to pre-vet prima facie permissible content, targeting obscene, perverse, anti-national, or reputation-damaging UGC on YouTube, Facebook, and podcasts.
2. How does the court plan to protect children from adult online content?
The bench suggested mandatory Aadhaar or PAN-based age verification for ‘A’-rated adult content, replacing ineffective one-line disclaimers. CJI Surya Kant noted that videos start immediately after warnings, proposing extended alerts followed by verification to gate explicit material.
3. Why did the court reject existing self-regulatory bodies?
It criticized “self-styled” mechanisms like the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation (led by Justice Gita Mittal) and News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority as ineffective. The court questioned if any real actions were taken, stating: “Why are these incidents happening?” and demanded neutral oversight free from industry influence.
4. What are the proposed content rating categories under new IT Rules?
The government’s MIB note outlines:
A: Adults only, requiring Aadhaar/PAN verification + disclaimer. This classifies UGC upfront to prevent viral harm.
U: Suitable for all children (freely accessible).
U/A: Age-segmented (below 7, 7-13, above 16) with warnings.
5. How will the Supreme Court ensure free speech isn’t throttled?
Guidelines will launch on a pilot basis with public consultation and expert review (judges, lawyers, technocrats). The bench assured: “We will not approve provisions used to gag someone.” It described regulations as a “sieve,” not a throttle, balancing expression with victims’ dignity—especially for children and disabled persons.
