SC suggests Aadhaar-based age verification for accessing potentially obscene online content
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday proposed Aadhaar-based age verification for accessing online content considered obscene, while hearing petitions linked to comedians and podcasters accused of objectionable online behaviour, reported Bar & Bench. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that current on-screen warnings may not sufficiently protect underage viewers and said platforms could be required to verify age before streaming such material.
Justice Bagchi remarked that obscenity may appear in multiple formats including books and art, but digital access raises new concerns when unwanted content appears immediately upon opening a device. CJI Kant added that warnings typically play for only a few seconds after which the programme begins, leaving viewers little time to opt out. He suggested a pilot system where platforms display a warning followed by Aadhaar-based age confirmation before the content starts.
The court clarified it was not advocating restrictions that would gag speech, though it asserted that unregulated online content required oversight. According to Bar & Bench, the Bench said self-styled regulatory groups were not sufficient and proposed the formation of an autonomous body free of external influence to determine what content could be allowed during an interim period. CJI Kant questioned, “If everything is allowed then what will happen?” The court also discussed the need for stringent laws to address content that demeans persons with disabilities. The CJI asked why a provision similar to the SC ST Act could not be drafted to punish such conduct. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed, stating that humour should not come at the cost of dignity.
The hearings relate to a plea by podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, known as BeerBiceps, concerning alleged obscene comments during Samay Raina’s show India’s Got Latent. A separate petition by Cure SMA India Foundation accused Raina of insensitive remarks on the cost of Spinal Muscular Atrophy treatment and of mocking a disabled person. Similar allegations involving other comedians are also before the court, with petitioners seeking regulation to protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.
Earlier, the Bench had referred to Article 19(2), observing that reasonable restrictions on free speech exist and that if Articles 19 and 21 were ever in conflict, Article 21 would prevail. Advocate Prashant Bhushan urged that all stakeholders be included in consultations on speech regulation. Mehta said that user generated content required oversight as creators cannot do “everything and anything” under the banner of free expression. CJI Kant agreed and stated that personal channels currently operate without accountability.
Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that the Information and Broadcasting Ministry is scheduling discussions on the issue and legislative amendments could follow. Mehta said the matter was under active consideration. Justice Bagchi also raised concerns about anti-national content and questioned whether self-regulation alone could address it, noting that virality often outpaces government response. Bhushan responded that the term remains vague.
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh told the court that children with disabilities were mocked on the referenced platform, making crowdfunding more difficult for families. She said Raina claimed to have donated Rs 2,50,000, but petitioners sought dignity overcompensation. The court suggested creation of a dedicated fund for treatment support, and recorded that the comedians agreed to conduct at least two fundraising events per month.
The court expressed confidence that participation of persons with disabilities on such platforms could generate broader visibility and support. Two such programmes are expected before the matter returns in four weeks.with agency inputs
