Recently, comedian Samay Raina made a controversial joke about a two-month-old Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) patient requiring a ₹16 crore injection. This remark drew significant backlash, as many viewed it as trivializing the hardships faced by patients and their families who rely on public fundraising for essential treatments.
In response to the comedian's remarks, the Cure SMA Foundation filed a petition urging action against comedians who make insensitive jokes about individuals with disabilities.
The core question before the Supreme Court was whether freedom of speech under Article 19 protects speech that infringes on the dignity of persons with disabilities, as safeguarded under Article 21. The Court determined that in such cases, Article 21 takes precedence over Article 19, stating, "We will curtail any freedom that is intended to demean another community."
Following these deliberations, the Supreme Court mandated Samay Raina and several other comedians to organize at least two awareness and fundraising events monthly for a special fund aimed at supporting persons with disabilities.
Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized that this initiative represents a "social burden, not a penal burden," insisting that these programs must effectively foster awareness and respect for individuals with disabilities.
In earlier actions:
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked, "Freedom of speech is invaluable, but perversity cannot be permitted." Chief Justice Surya Kant further added that accountability must be maintained, especially in content creation, stating that any adult content should come with appropriate warnings.
The Court also highlighted the necessity for an independent regulatory authority for digital content, free from governmental interference and private platform influence.
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh shared uplifting success stories of SMA patients:
Q1. What is SMA?
Answer: Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) is a rare genetic disorder that affects muscle strength and movement. Advanced treatment options can be extremely costly, reaching up to ₹16 crore.
Q2. Is the Court censoring comedy?
Answer: No, the Court clarified that it is enforcing accountability rather than censorship. Speech that systematically demeans vulnerable groups is not protected under the Constitution.
Q3. Why are comedians required to raise funds?
Answer: The Court views this as a form of restorative justice, turning harm into social good by leveraging their influence to support affected communities.
Q4. Can courts order such social service?
Answer: Yes, courts can impose corrective and community-oriented duties as reparation for violations of dignity.
Q5. What about other digital creators?
Answer: This ruling establishes a precedent that digital influencers are accountable for content that infringes on constitutional rights or harms vulnerable groups.
Question 1: What was the main issue before the Supreme Court regarding Samay Raina's joke?
A) Whether it was funny or not
B) Its impact on public perception of comedians
C) Whether it violated the dignity of persons with disabilities
D) The amount of funding required for treatment
Correct Answer: C
Question 2: What does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protect?
A) Freedom of speech
B) Right to dignity
C) Right to education
D) Right to privacy
Correct Answer: B
Question 3: What was mandated by the Supreme Court for the comedians involved?
A) To stop performing comedy
B) To conduct fundraising events
C) To pay fines
D) To apologize publicly
Correct Answer: B
Kutos : AI Assistant!
