The court also highlighted the lack of accountability in self-created channels. “Yes, free speech has to be protected… Suppose there is a program with adult content. There can be a warning in advance with parental control,” the judges said.

Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the bench that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting plans to hold a meeting on the matter and will ensure public consultation. Counsel representing the Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation noted that age classification and warnings are already in place.

However, the bench stressed that self-regulation was insufficient, adding that quick government action is often impossible due to viral online content. The judges also discussed content considered “anti-national.” Advocate Prashant Bhushan noted the vagueness of the term.

The bench responded: “Forget shades of anti-national. What if someone shows part of India as not a part of sovereign India… Of course, there cannot be a government authority to decide whether a publication is anti-national. But if it is per se of such nature which affects unity, integrity and sovereignty of the nation…”

The bench concluded that only an autonomous body should decide what is permissible during the interim. On Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointing to obscenity in a YouTube show, Chief Justice Kant said, “We [judges] will be the last ones to suggest a regulatory measure if you all come with a measure.”

Also in top court

‘Trend to set aside earlier decisions on rise’

The SC has expressed concern over an increasing trend of setting aside the apex court’s decisions made by the earlier benches comprising a different composition of judges. The concern was raised by Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih, who said that the “sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts is fundamental to the rule of law”. The court added that the process might “undermine” the apex court’s authority.