In a significant hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Surya Kanth and Justice Joymala Bagchi, expressed serious concern over the unregulated availability of pornography and its potential impact on children. The bench questioned whether the absence of age verification and content filtering on adult websites violates children’s fundamental rights, while emphasizing that any regulatory measure must not unduly chill free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. During the proceedings, the court appeared sympathetic to arguments that easy access to explicit material is harming minors.

The observations have reignited a long-standing national debate on whether the solution lies in stricter governmental regulation of online content or in greater parental oversight. Advocates for regulation, including senior activist and petitioner Uday Mahurkar (speaking on a television panel shortly after the hearing), argued that the situation has reached crisis proportions. “The tap from where this dirt is coming has to be closed,” he asserted, pointing to age-verification laws already in place in 16 Western countries, 24 American states, and Australia’s blanket ban on social media for children under 16. Describing pornography-driven sexual violence in slums as “India’s biggest challenge,” Mahurkar welcomed the court’s observations and insisted that decisive action is essential “if the nation is to be saved.

Opposing voices, however, cautioned against sweeping censorship. A legal expert argued that the primary responsibility rests with parents rather than the state. Highlighting platforms like Roblox, which have been linked to instances of child sexual exploitation, she contended that parents must monitor and restrict their children’s access to harmful applications instead of expecting blanket governmental bans. She stressed that under Article 19(1)(a), all speech is protected unless specifically restricted by parliamentary statute, and existing laws on defamation, obscenity, and child sexual abuse material already provide adequate tools to tackle specific harms. She further questioned the causal link repeatedly cited by regulation advocates, asking for empirical evidence that adult pornography directly leads to sexual violence or that child pornography significantly drives child abuse rates. “The connection between speech and action is not established,” she maintained, warning that broad restrictions risk violating constitutional guarantees of free expression.

The debate also touched on broader constitutional principles. Legal experts referenced the landmark seven-judge bench decision in the Mirzapur case, which clarified that only statutes enacted by Parliament—not judicial decisions—can legitimately restrict free speech. While morality and decency remain permissible grounds for limitation, participants agreed that any new law must strike a delicate balance to avoid a chilling effect on legitimate expression.

Meanwhile, in another similar case, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the complete absence of accountability for user-generated content on social media and YouTube, stating that “somebody has to be accountable” for what is uploaded. The strong observations came during a case triggered by controversial remarks made by comedian Ranvir Shorey (popularly known as Samay Raina) on his YouTube show India’s Got Latent, which allegedly mocked and disparaged persons with disabilities.

The same bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi expressed deep concern over the ease with which anyone can start a channel and post content without any oversight. Justice Surya Kant remarked that when one creates his/her channel, they need to take responsibility and accountability. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, argued that the issue went far beyond mere obscenity and amounted to “perversion.” He stressed that while freedom of speech is an invaluable right, it cannot be allowed to descend into perversity or unchecked harmful content.

Taking serious note of the submissions, the apex court granted the Centre four weeks to formulate regulations for user-generated content on digital platforms. On the practical challenges of monitoring India’s massive internet population, he pointed out that social media giants routinely cite lack of manpower when asked to remove harmful content. He advocated heavy reliance on unbiased artificial intelligence and automated profanity/hate-speech filters to flag problematic material at scale, rather than depending solely on human moderators.

With the court now pushing for concrete rules within a month, the Ranvir Shorey controversy has snowballed into a larger national reckoning on who polices India’s booming creator economy and how far freedom of expression can stretch before it harms vulnerable sections of society. With the bench indicating it will carefully scrutinize any measure that impinges on free speech, the final outcome is likely to shape India’s digital regulatory landscape for years to come.

As the Supreme Court continues to hear the matter, the contrasting views underscore a deeper divide: whether India should follow the path of Western jurisdictions with stringent age-gating and platform liability, or rely primarily on parental responsibility and targeted enforcement of existing laws.