New Delhi – The Supreme Court has issued a landmark directive emphasizing the urgent need for effective user-generated content regulation mechanisms across digital platforms. In a significant judgment delivered on Thursday, the court ordered the Centre to draft comprehensive guidelines within four weeks following public consultations, addressing the growing concerns over accountability and oversight of online content.
The Court’s Vision for Content Oversight
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, presiding over the bench, articulated a clear vision for user-generated content regulation that balances freedom of expression with societal responsibility. The court emphasized that regulations should not “throttle” anyone but create a “sieve” to filter inappropriate content. The bench highlighted a critical legal gap where content creators face no accountability for material uploaded on online platforms.
“This is something very strange that I create my own platform and channel but there is no accountability. There must be a sense of responsibility attached to such content,” the bench observed, underscoring the fundamental challenge in current user-generated content regulation frameworks.
Origins of the Legal Challenge
The case emerged from podcaster Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia’s petition seeking protection from multiple cases filed over his vulgar remarks on India’s Got Latent, a show broadcast on YouTube. The court had previously, in March, requested the Centre to provide guidelines specifically addressing obscene and undignified speech online. This petition has now evolved into a broader examination of user-generated content regulation across all digital platforms.
The Supreme Court’s intervention reopens fundamental tensions in content moderation, particularly as both technology companies and regulatory authorities struggle to prevent abuse effectively. The challenge becomes especially acute on video platforms and podcasts, where audio-visual formats make detection of unlawful or denigrating content significantly more difficult than text-based material.
Proposed Regulatory Mechanisms
Attorney General R Venkataramani presented a detailed note from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting suggesting amendments to the Code of Ethics under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. These proposed changes for user-generated content regulation incorporate separate guidelines addressing obscenity, accessibility for online curated content, and emerging challenges like artificial intelligence and deepfakes.
Also Read: Karnataka Power Tussle: Kharge Promises Swift Resolution Before December
The Centre’s proposal classifies online curated content under four distinct categories: U rating for content suitable for all children, U/A rating divided into three subcategories (children below 7 years, between 7-13 years, and above 16 years), and A rating exclusively for adult content. This classification system aims to establish clearer boundaries for user-generated content regulation.
Age Verification and Preventive Measures
A critical component of the proposed user-generated content regulation involves implementing stronger age-verification mechanisms. The court questioned the adequacy of current one-line disclaimers that viewers barely register before objectionable material begins playing. Chief Justice Kant noted, “A warning of one line and then the video starts—by the time a person understands the warning, it is already there.”
The bench suggested that videos containing adult content should verify user age through Aadhaar or PAN card authentication before becoming accessible, supplemented by appropriate disclaimers. This represents a significant enhancement in user-generated content regulation compared to existing minimal safeguards.
Challenges with Current Self-Regulatory Bodies
The court expressed skepticism about existing self-regulatory mechanisms, questioning their effectiveness in user-generated content regulation. When informed about self-regulatory bodies headed by former judges and industry associations handling complaints, the bench observed, “Is there a single instance of any action taken. If the problem has been taken care of, then why are these incidents happening.”
The court emphasized that “these self-styled bodies cannot be effective” and called for an autonomous body free from influence of platform operators. This criticism extends to questioning whether intermediaries would genuinely regulate content that is “per se anti-national” or disruptive of societal values without independent oversight.
Timing and Viral Content Concerns
A significant challenge identified in user-generated content regulation is the timing gap between content upload and removal. The court noted, “By the time the platform and takedown is ordered after 48 or 72 hours, it becomes viral. So how to plug that gap.” This observation highlights the need for preventive mechanisms rather than reactive measures in user-generated content regulation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta acknowledged governmental recognition of this challenge, stating, “Freedom of speech is a valuable right but it cannot lead to perversity and obscenity. Today young boys and girls have easy access to technology.”
Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns that overly broad guidelines could damage freedom of expression rights, citing instances of social media accounts being blocked for genuine dissent against government actions. The court assured that user-generated content regulation would be applied on a trial basis, stating, “We will not put a seal of approval if we find these provisions are used to gag someone.”
The bench emphasized protecting multiple fundamental rights: “Freedom of speech and expression has to be protected and respected but the society and innocent children also have a fundamental right of dignity.”
