SC seeks strong rules to regulate harmful user-generated content online
Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 27, 2025) urged the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to frame clear guidelines to regulate user-generated content (UGC), expressing concern that unverified and harmful online material continues to destroy reputations before platforms can intervene.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed that obscene, defamatory, and even “anti-national” content spreads rapidly across digital platforms, often leaving innocent individuals defenceless. The judges said the situation calls for an “independent and neutral regulatory mechanism” that does not function under the influence of the government or private broadcasters but evaluates content that appears “prima facie permissible.”
The court noted that UGC—especially videos containing adult material or defamatory allegations—can go viral long before social media intermediaries complete the takedown process. The Bench remarked that a few seconds of an ‘adult content’ warning is meaningless when minors can access such content without any difficulty. It even proposed stronger age-verification measures such as linking Aadhaar details.
Chief Justice Kant questioned the accountability of content creators who operate their own online channels without any responsibility toward the public. “How can anyone open a channel and remain answerable to none?” he asked.
While assuring that any regulatory framework must not compromise the constitutional protection of free speech, the court stressed that Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Millions who are targeted, abused, or defamed online also have a fundamental right to protection, the Bench underscored.
“Dissent is essential in a democracy; criticism of the government is not the issue. The problem arises when content is uploaded on platforms like YouTube and millions suffer irreversible harm before they even approach a court,” the Chief Justice said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan cautioned against curbing free expression and insisted that any new rules must undergo extensive public consultations. He also warned that vague labels such as ‘anti-national’ could lead to misuse.
The Bench pointed out that existing legal remedies only offer recourse after the damage occurs. Justice Bagchi said takedowns typically require around 24 hours, by which time the content has already caused widespread harm. “Social media operates at lightning speed and across borders. We need mechanisms that prevent the initial dissemination of harmful content. This is not censorship—it is protection,” he remarked.
Justice Bagchi added that with the rise of AI-driven tools, digital platforms have enormous power to analyse, curate, and control content while monetising it aggressively.
Senior advocate Amit Sibal, representing the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation, suggested replacing the term “preventive” with “effective” to avoid implications of pre-censorship. He acknowledged the core problem: intermediaries cannot react quickly enough to stop harmful UGC from going viral.
The hearing concluded with the court reiterating the urgent need for a regulatory structure that shields the public from harmful online posts while preserving constitutional freedoms.