New Delhi, Aug. 26 -- The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned social media influencers and podcasters that they cannot press their free speech rights when their "commercial" content offends the dignity and sensitivities of others, underlining that humour or entertainment premised on ridicule of vulnerable groups will not be permitted. A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said while humour is "well taken" when it involves self-deprecation, "when we start laughing at others, that becomes a breach of sensitivity". "India is a diverse country with so many communities. When you generate humour on a simple apartheid plane, it becomes a problem," said the court while is hearing a batch of petitions concerning podcasters and YouTubers, including Ranveer Allahbadia and comedian Samay Raina. Pointing out that podcasters and YouTubers earn money from their shows, the bench stressed: "It is not just freedom of speech but it's commerce. It is commercial speech. There are various forms of speeches.When we talk of commercial speech, there is no freedom there." The court further urged the Union government to come back by November with a proposed regulatory framework that not only demarcates the boundaries of free speech but also defines the obligations that accompany it. "A policy cannot be reaction to a particular incident. You will have to keep in mind future challenges. It has to be broad-based and all aspects of the matter need to be taken care of while formulating a policy matter," the bench told attorney general R Venkataramani. The court recorded in its order the AG's assurance that guidelines will be drafted in consultation with stakeholders, including broadcasters' bodies, and "will not be a kneejerk reaction to any particular incident but broad-based keeping in view modern challenges and advancements in technology." The proceedings came in petitions linked to offensive remarks against persons with disabilities during an online show by comedians Samay Raina and others, flagged by the NGO Cure SMA India Foundation. On Monday, senior advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the foundation, submitted that the apology offered by the comedians must be genuine and accompanied by remedial steps. The court directed the accused to broadcast their unconditional apologies on the same YouTube channels or podcasts where the offensive content was aired, and to file affidavits confirming compliance and exploring Singh's suggestion that they use their influence to espouse the cause of the disabled. The bench cautioned that not every time can an organisation be expected to step in to defend the dignity of marginalised communities. "The efforts by the legislative and judicial framework to bring these vulnerable classes into the mainstream is completely smashed if we allow such speeches to continue," it said. Adding that stereotyping any group -- whether disabled, women, children, or senior citizens, cannot be allowed, the court remarked: "Where will this end?" The court also asked the five influencers - Raina, Sonali Thakkar, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjit Singh Ghai and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar-- to specify the monetary penalty they are willing to pay, besides other steps. "Consider this as purging the contempt," said the bench, even as it excused their personal appearance in future hearings. Monday's hearing followed the court's earlier observations on July 15, when it stressed that an individual's right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution must prevail over another's right to free speech under Article 19. "Article 19 cannot prevail over Article 21. If there is a race between Articles 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump Article 19," the bench said then, urging the government to propose balanced guidelines to curb obscenity and offensive content online without sliding into censorship. The July 15 hearing also saw the bench criticise content by podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia as "perverted" and "disgusting," allowing him to resume his show only after an undertaking to uphold "standards of decency and morality." It had insisted that guidelines must be framed in conformity with constitutional principles, ensuring that state power is not misused but also that vulnerable groups are not left unprotected. The case emerged from an earlier plea where Allahbadia, who runs a channel called BeerBiceps, had sought clubbed hearing and protection from arrest in FIRs filed in Assam and Maharashtra over his comments made in an episode of YouTube show "India's Got Latent." Following this, the Cure SMA Foundation filed a petition citing derogatory and humiliating remarks made against persons with disabilities, including by Raina, in the same show. Earlier, the Supreme Court had urged the government to formulate regulatory measures to check obscenity online without veering into censorship, noting that the existing Information Technology Rules, 2021, and Cable Television Rules, 1994, appear inadequate or ineffectively implemented. "There is no absolute fundamental right on a platter in this country, and all rights come with corresponding duties," the bench had remarked on March 3....