SC Flags Allegations Of 'Encroaching On Legislature, Executive' During Hearing On Obscenity On OTT Platforms
The Supreme Court flagged allegations of overreach as it issued notices to the Government and various OTT and social media platforms on a plea seeking regulation of sexually explicit content.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and several major OTT and social media platforms on a plea seeking decisive action to regulate sexually explicit content. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih said the petition raised an issue of “important concern” and noted that the matter fell within the domain of the executive or the legislature.
“As it is, there are allegations that we are encroaching upon the legislature and executive power,” Justice Gavai observed, as reported by PTI.
The bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to ensure that the government takes steps regarding the concerns raised in the plea. Mehta informed the court that some regulations were already in place and more were under contemplation.
The plea, filed by five petitioners through advocate Path Yadav, also called for the constitution of a National Content Control Authority to prohibit sexually explicit material on OTT and social media platforms. Notices were also issued to companies such as Netflix, Amazon, Ullu, ALTT, MUBI, Google, X Corp (formerly Twitter), Apple, and Meta, according to news agency IANS.
The public interest litigation (PIL) alleged that the unchecked dissemination of obscene, sexually perverted, pedophilic, and bestiality content, including child pornography and soft-core adult content, had contributed to a rise in crimes against women and children and was negatively influencing the psychological development of young minds.
“If left unchecked, this unregulated spread of obscene material could have severe consequences on societal values, mental health and public safety,” the plea stated. It also alleged that despite multiple complaints and representations made to authorities, no effective action had been taken. “The lack of effective oversight has allowed these platforms to promote content that fosters unhealthy and perverse tendencies, particularly among impressionable youth,” the petitioners said, as quoted by IANS.
The petition further contended that the constant consumption of such content altered perceptions of sexuality, fuelled deviant behaviours, and contributed to rising incidents of sexual offences against women and children. It warned that young individuals, particularly children and teenagers, were becoming increasingly vulnerable to the psychological impact, leading to normalisation of sexual violence, objectification of women, and distorted views on human relationships.
Citing Article 38 of the Constitution, the plea asserted that it is the government’s duty to enact laws for the welfare of the people and to protect the social order, which could only be preserved by effectively preventing the dissemination of pornographic content.
Tensions Between Supreme Court And Modi Govt
Meanwhile, the hearing came against a backdrop of growing tensions between the judiciary and the government. The friction escalated after the Supreme Court criticised Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for delaying assent to multiple bills passed by the state Assembly for nearly six years, deeming his actions “arbitrary” and “illegal.” The court ruled that the bills, resubmitted by the DMK-led government, were deemed passed.
The apex court also ruled that the President must take a decision within three months on any state bill referred by a governor.
This judgment sparked a political row. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey sharply criticised the apex court, accusing it of trying to foment anarchy. The BJP subsequently distanced itself from his remarks, and Dubey now faces a contempt of court hearing. Party colleague Dinesh Sharma also made critical comments regarding the judiciary.
Further, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has made repeated sharp remarks, claiming that Members of Parliament were the “ultimate masters” of the Constitution and accusing the court of deploying a “nuclear missile” — referring to Article 142, which grants special powers to the Supreme Court — against democracy.
Despite the criticism, Justice Surya Kant recently assured that the Supreme Court faced attacks on a daily basis but emphasised that there was no need to worry about the independence and strength of the judiciary.
Related Video
Delhi News: Why Bulldozer Action Was Conducted at Night? DCP Nitin Valson Explains Key Reasons
Top Headlines
