"Falls In Executive's Domain But...": Supreme Court On 'Obscene' Content Plea

NDTV

28-04-2025

New Delhi:
Unease between the Supreme Court and government was evident, again, on Monday afternoon as part of the continuing fallout of the judiciary's landmark April 8 verdict - on setting governors and the President a specific timeline to clear bills presented by state governments.
Justice BR Gavai, hearing a PIL against 'obscene' content on social media and OTT platforms pointed out that content regulation is the responsibility of the government, i.e., the executive, and wondered aloud if it would be advisable for the court, already facing flak, to step in.
"This falls in the executive's domain... as it is we are facing allegations of interfering with the executive's domain!" Justice Gavai, who takes oath as the next Chief Justice on May 14, said.
The court required an assurance from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, that the plea being heard would "not be taken as adversarial litigation".
The court also received a similar assurance from the petitioner, represented by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who said, "... it is not an adversarial plea... this is a serious concern."
'Obscene' Content Online
On the topic of regulating content on social media and OTT platforms, the bench of Justice Gavai and Justice AG Masih was asked to direct the government to set up a National Content Authority Association to prohibit 'sexually explicit content' from being streamed.
The plea claimed certain websites were disseminating pornographic materials sans filter and some OTT platforms were streaming content that also had potential child pornography.
In February the top court, while hearing a plea by podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia - in the dock over a 'joke' about parents and sex on a stand-up comedy show on YouTube - had asked the government if it is planning to take any steps to identify and regulate such 'obscene' content.
Today the court was told, "Some regulation is in place... more is being worked on."
"Something should be done..." the court responded to the Solicitor-General, who agreed and said, "Some of the content is so perverse even two men cannot sit together and watch."
Government vs Supreme Court?
And then there is the larger question - that of tension between the Supreme Court and the government. The tension broke after the court criticised Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for delaying, for nearly six years, multiple bills passed by the state Assembly.
Mr Ravi was told his actions were "arbitrary" and "illegal", and the 10 bills he had held up were deemed to be passed from the second time the state's DMK government had presented them.
The court also gave other governors, including those from other non-BJP ruled states that had been accused by that government of withholding assent for bills, and the President, in cases where the governor refers the bill to her, a strict deadline to pass such legislation.
The order triggered a row.
The BJP's Nishikant Dubey was particularly scathing in his criticism, accusing the top court trying to foment anarchy. Mr Dubey's party colleague, Dinesh Sharma, also made comments.
The BJP distanced itself from the remarks. Mr Dubey now faces a contempt of court hearing.
Sharp remarks were also made, repeatedly, by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who claimed MPs were the "ultimate masters" of the Constitution and accused the court of using a "nuclear missile (the reference was to Article 142, which gives it special powers) against democracy".
Last week Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court faced such attacks every day, but stressed that none need be worried about the independence and strength of the judiciary.
'We Respect Judiciary': Govt Sources
Meanwhile, top government sources have told NDTV of the "respect" for the judiciary.
"All pillars of democracy are working in tandem... judiciary and the legislature are two sides of the same coin," a highly-placed source in the government told NDTV.