Supreme Court Labels Comedian Samay Raina’s Remarks on Disabilities as ‘Disturbing’
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed deep concern over remarks allegedly made by stand-up comedian Samay Raina targeting persons with disabilities, calling the issue “very, very serious” and “disturbing.”
A petition was filed by the Cure SMA Foundation, which cited specific instances where Raina reportedly mocked the cost of treatment for a two-month-old child suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and, in another act, made offensive comments about a blind and cross-eyed person. He asked a visually impaired participant, “Which of your eyes should I look into?”. The Foundation also brought up videos where some cricketers allegedly participated in content that they claim belittled persons with disabilities.
Hearing the plea, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh asked Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, who appeared for the petitioner, to refile the petition with a more comprehensive approach. The bench instructed her to list all individuals involved and provide video footage and transcripts, and to suggest potential directions that the Court could issue in such matters.
“This is a very, very serious issue. We are really disturbed to see that,” Justice Kant observed during the hearing, while asking the petitioner to present a more detailed version of the plea that could help the court act appropriately.
This matter is in line with the apex court’s broader deliberations around regulating online content, particularly obscene and harmful material circulating on platforms like YouTube. In previous hearings, the Court had already issued notices to the Union Government seeking its view on framing guidelines for online content creators, balancing Article 19(1)(a) (right to free speech) with Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions).
In its petition, Cure SMA Foundation argued that many online creators misuse their freedom of expression to promote negative stereotypes and dehumanizing humor about people with disabilities. The Foundation stressed the need for clearer protections against such “disabling humour” and called for a regulatory mechanism that upholds dignity without infringing on genuine creative expression.