Published Aug 25, 2025 | 6:09 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 25, 2025 | 6:09 PM
Supreme Court of India. (Wikimedia)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court on Monday held that the right to dignity under Article 21 prevails over the right to freedom of speech under Article 19 when the two are in conflict. The court further ruled that comedians and influencers engaged in commercial speech bear a higher duty and must not exploit vulnerable communities for humour, warning that penalties may follow if the apology is not issued.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has directed a group of comedians to tender a public apology for mocking persons with disabilities (PwDs) in their performances, Livelaw reported.
The court held that the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails over the right to freedom of speech under Article 19 when the two are in conflict.
The order was passed on Monday, 26 August, by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a petition filed by the SMA Cure Foundation.
It flagged videos by comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar, which were alleged to have ridiculed persons with disabilities.
In its ruling, the apex court introduced a novel legal principle, holding that “commercial speech” attracts a higher standard of duty. Influencers and comedians who monetise their content, the Bench said, cannot exploit vulnerable communities “to generate humour at their expense.”
“The remarks were disturbing and crass. Humour cannot come at the expense of another’s honour,” the judges observed, making it clear that the comedians must apologise publicly and warning that a penalty may also follow.
“Humor is well taken and is a part of life. We laugh at ourselves. But when we start laughing at others and create a breach of sensibility… on a community plane, when humor is generated, it becomes problematic. And this is what so-called influencers of today should bear in mind. They are commercializing speech,” ,” Justice Bagchi observed.
“The community at large should not be utilized to hurt the sentiments of certain sections. It’s not only freedom of speech, it’s commercial speech.”
Attorney General of India R Venkataramani informed the Bench that draft guidelines to regulate such instances of content were under preparation. However, he emphasised that there cannot be a “complete gag” on speech.
