Court calls for penalising mockery of persons with disabilities; recommends an independent regulator for online content
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (27 November 2025) urged the Union Government to consider enacting stringent legislation to criminalise derogatory or mocking remarks against persons with disabilities and those suffering from rare genetic disorders. The Court stressed that such behaviour cannot be treated merely as free speech — when it undermines human dignity, it must attract penal consequences.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the proposed law could be modeled on the lines of the existing SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which penalises caste-based slurs and humiliating acts. The Court asked: “If casteist insults are punishable, why not derogatory remarks against the differently-abled?”
Background: Complaint and Court Proceedings
The matter arose from a petition filed by SMA Cure Foundation — an NGO working for persons afflicted with rare neuromuscular disorders. The plea highlighted hurtful jokes and derogatory comments made by certain social media influencers and comedians in their content. Among others, the online show host Samay Raina was named. The petition argued that such remarks mock persons with disabilities, especially those suffering from rare disorders, and amount to public ridicule and moral harm.
Earlier in 2025, the Court had already reprimanded these influencers, calling them out for ridiculing disabled persons. It directed them to issue public apologies and threatened financial penalties in case of future misconduct.
Why Court Demands New Legislation — Beyond Existing Laws
The Bench argued that existing self-regulation mechanisms on digital platforms have repeatedly failed to prevent offensive content from being circulated widely. Therefore, a neutral, independent and autonomous regulator is needed to monitor and regulate obscene, offensive, or illegal content online — rather than leaving it to platforms or creators themselves.
The Court underscored that the right to free expression under Article 19 of the Constitution does not extend to content that violates human dignity and fundamental rights under Article 21. Humor or satire “cannot come at the cost of someone’s dignity,” Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta told the Court, a remark which the Court welcomed.
Court’s Recommendations and Way Forward
The Court urged the Centre to frame a new penal statute, treating derogatory remarks or mockery of disabled persons as an offence, possibly non-bailable and with deterrent punishments akin to the SC-ST Act.
It also recommended the establishment of an independent content-regulator to supervise online platforms and intervene where content violates dignity, decency or constitutional rights.
The Court asked for the draft proposals to be submitted to it within a reasonable time frame, as part of urgent remedial measures to prevent recurrence of such offences.
Why This Ruling Matters — Societal & Digital Implications
Legal experts and disability-rights advocates say the Supreme Court’s demand marks a significant shift: from viewing harmful content as a moral lapse to treating it as a criminal and constitutional violation. In the digital age, where content gets instant and widespread reach, unchecked mockery of vulnerable groups — especially persons with disabilities — can cause deep social harm, stigmatization, and emotional trauma.
If enacted, the new law and regulator could set precedents ensuring dignity, respect and inclusion for all citizens, irrespective of ability. It would also compel content creators and platforms to exercise greater responsibility. The move may deter future derogatory content and promote safer, more respectful digital spaces.
What Happens Next
The Centre is expected to respond to the Supreme Court’s directive. Meanwhile, the issue has reignited debates on freedom of expression vs. dignity of the individual, platform accountability, and the need for legal safeguards for disabled and marginalized communities. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether this judicial push translates into effective legal reform.
