Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
According to Live Law, the court also directed him to help raise funds for the treatment of disabled people, especially those suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).
This direction was passed by the court as a compensation for insensitive jokes made about disabled persons.
A division bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said influencers can invite specially-abled persons on their platforms to encourage donations and create wider awareness about rare diseases.
When the comedians’ counsel argued that they do not organize shows regularly, the court refused to modify its order and remarked, “This is a social burden that we are putting on you.”
“How hard is it to host on their YouTube?” The bench questioned, following which the comedian’s lawyer agreed to comply as per Live Law.
Concern about petition and dignity
The case stems from a petition filed by M/s Cure SMA Foundation, which had objected to a joke made by Samay Raina about a child suffering from SMA.
Senior advocate Aparajita Singh informed the court that many persons with SMA have made significant achievements, including working at Microsoft, studying at Michigan State University, becoming a classical singer and pursuing a PhD in bioinformatics. He said that when public figures make fun of such individuals, it harms crowdfunding efforts, according to Live Law.
The foundation also rejected Raina’s proposal Demanding Rs 2.5 lakh, he said that the matter is not about money but about dignity.
Court asks Center to investigate strict laws
The Supreme Court also asked the Center to consider enacting a strict law to criminalize derogatory comments against persons with disabilities, similar to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
“Why can’t you bring in a stringent law on the lines of the SC-ST Act which criminalises casteist comments – there is a provision for punishment if you offend them,” news agency PTI quoted the bench as saying.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, agreed that humor should not diminish dignity, saying “freedom of expression is an invaluable right but it cannot give rise to distortion.”
The court also called for a “neutral, independent and autonomous” body to regulate objectionable online content, saying “self-styled bodies will not help”.
Mehta informed the court that the guidelines are under consultation and will be placed in the public domain for feedback. The case is expected to be reviewed after four weeks.