Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Against Samay Raina & Others In ‘India’s Got Latent’ Case; Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra Was On Record For Raina Through The Proceedings

Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025; Ashish Anil Chanchlani v. State of Guwahati & Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 85/2025; and Cure SMA Foundation of India v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025 [Order dated August 14, 2026] The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the FIRs and consequential proceedings against comedian Samay Raina and fellow content creators Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar alias Sonali Aditya Desai and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar in connection with the controversial remarks made on the YouTube show India’s Got Latent, after noting the respondents’ efforts to engage with the petitioner NGO and undertake initiatives to raise awareness and support for persons suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Through the course of these proceedings, Samay Raina’s case on record was handled by Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra-I, who filed Raina’s pleadings before the Supreme Court from an early stage of the litigation. A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the connected petitions arising from the controversy over objectionable remarks made during the India’s Got Latent episode, including mocking of persons suffering from rare genetic conditions like Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Counsel informed the Bench that following the Court’s earlier directions, genuine efforts had been made by the parties to engage with each other and that discussions were underway to develop further initiatives. The Court welcomed the progress, with CJI Surya Kant observing: “We are quite sure that once there are genuine efforts the positive results are bound to be there. It will have a very positive impact.” The Court recorded the respondents’ submission that they had organised a chess tournament for persons with disabilities from March 14 to 16, 2026, which received widespread media coverage and helped create awareness about organisations working for persons with disabilities, including SMA. The event also generated donations for organisations working for persons with disabilities. The respondents submitted that they had also scheduled four additional shows for fundraising. However, logistical difficulties prevented them from making specific arrangements to invite persons with disabilities to those events. They have now expressed willingness to invite persons suffering from SMA and provide financial support. The Court also noted the progress made through the constructive dialogue between the respondents and the Cure SMA Foundation regarding programmes aimed at spreading awareness about SMA and celebrating the lives and achievements of persons living with the condition. The Court consequently quashed the FIRs registered against the respondents and set aside all consequential proceedings, while noting that the petitioner NGO had agreed to accept the amount deposited by the respondents for utilisation towards one of its causes. At the same time, the Bench made clear that the order should not be read as an endorsement of the remarks that gave rise to the proceedings, and that it kept the writ petition pending on the larger public-interest question of guidelines and safeguards against online content that may humiliate or demean persons with disabilities, indicating it would call for suggestions from persons with disabilities and the petitioner organisation before issuing comprehensive directions on the subject.

Background of the proceedings

The Cure SMA petition arose from a writ filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, registered as W.P. (C) No. 460 of 2025, over allegedly insensitive remarks concerning persons with disabilities made during the India’s Got Latent episode recorded at Khar Habitat on November 14, 2024. Samay Raina was arrayed as Respondent No. 6 along with the other comedians. The Supreme Court took up the matter in 2025, and as the proceedings progressed, its focus expanded from the specific remarks to broader concerns of dignity, awareness and the treatment of persons with disabilities in public and online content, with the respondents directed to undertake measures aimed at creating awareness and supporting persons affected by disabilities and rare diseases.

Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra’s role in the case

Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra-I was the Advocate-on-Record for Samay Raina for much of the litigation. The Supreme Court’s office report in W.P. (C) No. 460 of 2025, dated August 23, 2025, identifies him as Raina’s Advocate-on-Record and records the filing of Raina’s counter-affidavit — the formal reply setting out Raina’s response to the allegations in the writ petition — in August 2025, at an early and critical stage when the Court was closely examining the conduct of the respondents. As the matter proceeded through successive directions on compliance, Mishra continued to represent Raina on record. A subsequent office report, concerning the proceedings of March 11, 2026, records that Mishra filed an affidavit of compliance on Raina’s behalf on March 9, 2026 — the filing through which respondents formally placed on record, before the Court, the steps they had taken pursuant to its earlier directions. He also continued to be shown among counsel for the respondents as late as the July 14, 2026 hearing, at which the Court imposed costs of Rs 3 lakh each on the respondents for delayed compliance. At the concluding hearing on August 14, 2026, Raina was represented before the Bench by Senior Advocate Madhvi Diwan, along with advocates Stuti Gujral, Shubhangni Jain and Ayush Kaushik, and Abhay Pratap Singh, AOR. The engagement of senior counsel for the final hearing does not detract from Mishra’s documented role through the preceding stages of the case: the Supreme Court’s own records establish that it was Mishra who was on record for Raina, and who filed the pleadings that carried Raina’s case through the compliance process leading up to the final order. The record does not, however, indicate that Mishra personally made oral submissions before the Bench; his role, as reflected in the case file, is that of the Advocate-on-Record who filed Raina’s pleadings and compliance documentation. Case: M/s. Cure SMA Foundation of India v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 460/2025, Supreme Court of India.

About Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra

Anil Kumar Mishra is an Advocate-on-Record before the Supreme Court of India. In the present matter, he represented comedian Samay Raina and filed documents on his behalf during the Supreme Court proceedings.