Earlier this week, Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh of the Supreme Court of India, permitted Ranveer Allahbadia to resume The Ranveer Show on his YouTube channel Beer Biceps. The YouTube podcast was put on hold after Allahbadia made inappropriate remarks during an entertainment programme, sparking widespread outrage and disgust among the Indian public.
This new allowance by the Court is the second relief awarded to the podcaster. In a previous hearing, the Court had imposed a pause on The Ranveer Show “till further orders” and had placed a stay on filing fresh FIRs against Allahbadia.
Heat of the trial
In the last recent hearing, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the YouTuber, shed light on how the livelihoods of the 280 employees that work under Allahbadia for The Ranveer Show rest upon the Court’s decision on running it.
On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union and the states of Maharashtra and Assam, the two FIR’s filed against Allahbadia. “Vulgar”, “perverse” and “really troubling” were the words used by Mehta in describing the podcaster’s remarks, urging the Court to “let him be quiet for some time” and pushing for strict guidelines regarding content creation.
Mehta also reminded the Court that despite being summoned by the Gauhati Police, Allahbadia had not presented himself for investigation, to which Chandrachud retorted that the podcaster had written two letters to the Police, seeking a date and time for said investigation, but in vain.
The Court rules
The Court favoured the argument safeguarding the livelihoods of Allahbadia’s employees but went on to place a strict moral guideline on his content, and consequently the content of all YouTubers and podcasters in India. He emphasised that while all citizens hold freedom of speech, this freedom is not absolute and must follow moral and legal guidelines. In-keeping with this advice, he asked the Union to propose a “very limited” set of guidelines which do not outrightly censor free speech. He also urged the government to consult stakeholders and the public to produce a framework, stating, “Everybody can contribute, and then we can determine the safest regulatory measure.”
Moreover, the Court asked the Gauhati Police to send Allahbadia a date and time at the earliest, and decided that it would rule over the travel ban imposed on the podcaster in a separate hearing.
“Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once and stop it forever?” This is the question Allahbadia had asked a contestant on the February 9 episode of India’s Got Talent, sparking massive outrage, subsequent FIRs and even death threats. Since the event, the National Creators Awards winner and the creator of the show, Samay Raina, have apologised and taken down all previous episodes of The Ranveer Show.
That this remark gained unprecedented traction, made Indian headlines and primetime news may be due to the popularity of Allahbadia’s work as a YouTuber and podcaster. Having hosted both local and international celebrities on this podcast forum, Allahbadia’s work saw the great heights of acclaim, and as is the case always, the great depths of disdain following his crude remarks.
While a great chunk of the mammoth Indian population resonated with Mehta’s concerns regarding the perverse nature of comedy being generated in the country, a separate faction digressed. “It feels like the state is trying to make an example out of Allahbadia,” said Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation. Saket Gokhale, an opposition lawmaker, agreed, writing on X, “Crass content can be criticised if it offends you. However, you cannot have the state persecute and lock up people for offending your ‘moral sentiments'” Other comedians took the opportunity to criticise the media on its monolithic view of the case and its blind condemnation of all digital content.
Whatever the case may be, this particular incident has caused a domino effect surrounding conversations about the need for passing punchy comments to go viral online, its consequences and the freedoms and limitations of thought and speech within India’s obscenity laws.
