Regulating User-Generated Content (UGC) – SC Pushes for Robust Framework to Balance Free Speech and Protection

Regulating User-Generated Content (UGC) Latest News

• The Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over the rapid spread of harmful User-Generated Content (UGC) on social media, including obscene, perverse, defamatory and allegedly “anti-national” content. 
• The Court examined the need for autonomous regulation, age-verification mechanisms, preventive measures, and amendments to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules/ IT Rules 2021 while ensuring compliance with Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2).

Key Developments

• SC’s observations:
  • UGC with adult content, defamatory material or harmful misinformation goes viral before takedowns are possible.
  • Existing warnings before adult content are insufficient.
  • Users can run their own channels without accountability — termed as “very strange” by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
  • Need for an impartial and autonomous authority, independent of government and private broadcasters.
• Protection vs free speech:
  • The court clarified the intention not to curb free speech, but to protect innocents from irreversible harm.
  • Emphasised that misuse of online speech undermines the rights of vulnerable individuals.

‹ ›

Proposed Regulatory Measures

• Preventive mechanisms for online content:
  • Age verification: Suggested use of Aadhaar or PAN for age verification before accessing sensitive content.
  • Stricter oversight: Autonomous body to regulate UGC — “self-styled bodies will not be effective.”
  • AI–enabled moderation: Platforms must leverage AI for impact assessment, early detection, and prompt moderation.
• Amendments proposed by the Ministry of I&B:
  • Expansion of the IT Rules, 2021: Incorporation of guidelines on obscenity standards, AI and deepfake regulation, accessibility norms, rating of content by age group, bar on anti-national digital content.
  • Definition of “obscene content”: Based on lascivious character, prurient interest, and potential to “deprave or corrupt” the audience.
• Digital content must not:
  • Offend decency, attack religions/communities, promote communal attitudes
  • Be obscene, defamatory, false or contain suggestive innuendos
  • Promote violence, anti-national attitudes, criminality
  • Derogate women or PwDs
  • Present indecent or vulgar themes
  • Violate Cinematograph Act, 1952
  • Include live coverage of anti-terror operations outside official briefings
• Community standards test: Use of Aveek Sarkar judgment (contemporary community standards).
• Content rating framework: U (can be viewed by a person under the age of 7 years with parental guidance), U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+, A (online curated content which is restricted to adults).

Key Concerns Raised

• Risk of pre-censorship: Senior Advocate Amit Sibal warned that the term “preventive” may imply “pre-censorship.” Suggested replacing it with “effective” regulation.
• Ambiguity in ‘anti-national’ definition: Advocate Prashant Bhushan expressed concerns over broad and vague use of the term.
• Need for public consultations: Prior SC directions mandating consultations with stakeholders not yet followed. Pre-legislative consultation policy (2014) requires open public debate on such rules.
• Other concerns:
  • Rapid virality of content before takedown.
  • Lack of pre-emptive protection for victims.
  • Borderless nature of social media communication.
  • Difficulty balancing free speech with protection against harm.
  • Children’s vulnerability to unfiltered online content.
  • Confusion among platforms due to legal overlaps and pending challenges to IT Rules, 2021.

Way Forward

• Establish autonomous digital content authority: Independent of both State and private intermediaries.
• Implement secure age verification: Explore Aadhaar/PAN integration with strong privacy protections.
• Strengthen IT Rules, 2021: Clear standards for obscenity, deepfakes, community harm, and discrimination.
• Mandate public consultations: In line with the 2014 Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy.
• AI-driven early detection systems: Mandatory deployment for content risk assessment.
• Clear definition of key terms: Especially “anti-national,” “perverse content,” “obscene digital content”.
• Enhanced platform accountability: Strict penalties for non-compliance, modelled on SC/ST Act safeguarding principles.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a critical step in India’s evolving digital governance landscape. 
• While reaffirming the sanctity of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), the Court emphasises the urgent need for preventive, accountable and technologically updated mechanisms to safeguard citizens from harmful UGC. 
• The proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 and establishment of an autonomous regulatory body aim to strike a delicate balance between digital rights and digital safety, ensuring a responsible and secure online environment.

Source: TH | IE