Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010101092026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : PIL/41/2026 DIVYANSH RATHI, PETITIONER IN PERSON S/O MR. MAHESH RATHI, HAVING REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 2ND FLOOR, AASTHA TOWER, PANBAZAR, C. K. ROAD, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781001. VERSUS 1.UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, HAVING OFFICE AT ELECTRONICS NIKETAN, 6, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003. 2:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION HAVING OFFICE AT KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110001. 3:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION BROADCASTING HAVING OFFICE AT SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001. 4:MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR A-WING SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110 001. 5:CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OFCONSUMER AFFAIRS HAVING OFFICE AT KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI -110001. 6:META PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OF META INDIA MR. ARUN SRINIVAS HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT DLF ATRIA Page No.# 2/4 79 GULMOHAR MARG DLF PHASE-2 SECTOR 25 GURUGRAM HARYANA- 122102. 7:GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY MRS. PREETI LOBANA COUNTRY MANAGER VICE PRESIDENT HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT NO. 3 RNZ INFINITY TOWER-E 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR OLD MADRAS ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA-56001 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divyansh Rathi, Petitioner-in-person. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Medhi, Central Government Counsel. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25.05.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. Divyansh Rathi, petitioner-in-person. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel is present. A peculiar petition has been filed before us under the rubric Public Interest Litigation, highlighting that there has been a rapid and unregulated growth of social media influencers and content creators, who according to the petitioner, give advice on screen, on issues which are highly sensitive and fall in the technical domain of health, medicine, nutrition, finance, law, education, real estate, child welfare etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no regulatory mechanism to ensure that only people competent to advise or influence must be allowed to display their contents before the public at large. According to him, such content creators, on these sensitive aspects of Page No.# 3/4 life, do not have any formal qualification, degree or licence. There is, it has been asserted, no regulatory oversight. There is yet another grievance of the petitioner, namely, that these content creators, who are beyond any regulatory mechanism of the State, make money out of the number of followers. What is questionable is that these content creators/ influencers get projected, because of the large number of followers, as professionals which possibly could misguide the gullible viewers. The concern of the petitioner is that with this unregulated content creation and its display, the respectability of the professionals in the respective domain/fields would stand considerably eroded. Few of the examples cited by the petitioner are legal influencers, who may be giving advice without them being law Graduates. Similarly, there is a possibility of even unregistered real estate brokers influencing or promoting unregistered projects or lands which are in dispute. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner is that the State must be directed to regulate or restrict such unqualified influencers in sensitive fields and make it incumbent upon such influencers to disclose their qualifications or credentials. There ought to be disclaimers in such projection if it is meant for entertainment. The concern of the petitioner cannot be stated to be frivolous. But the issue before us is whether any restriction on these kinds of content creation would be possible without impinging or violating the right to free speech. Page No.# 4/4 Regulation at all levels is required but this would not be the forum for deciding such issues. The petitioner would be well advised to approach the concerned Department/fora of the Government for necessary action in this regard. With the afore-noted observation, we dispose off this petition. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant