The Supreme Court Today (March 3) permitted The Ranveer Show to continue, but only if it follows strict moral and decency standards. The court is also considering new regulations to balance free speech and public norms.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday permitted YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as BeerBiceps, to resume hosting The Ranveer Show, provided he ensures that the content adheres to general standards of morality and decency.
Previously, the Court had granted him interim protection from arrest under several conditions, including a ban on appearing in any show.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh issued the order in response to Allahbadia’s petition, following multiple criminal cases filed against him nationwide over controversial remarks made by him and others during a judges’ panel discussion on India’s Got Latent.
“Subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking that his podcast shows will maintain the desired standards of morality and decency so that viewers of any age group can watch, the petitioner is PERMITTED TO RESUME THE RANVEER SHOW.”
-Apex Court Held
During the hearing, his lawyer, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, argued that this restriction was impacting not only Allahbadia’s livelihood but also the jobs of his 280 employees.
“We have moved an application. We are seeking lifting of one part of the order which refrained him from airing his shows etc. He has no sense of humour at all.. but he has 280 employees and it is his livelihood. It can be ordered that let no profane words be uttered.”
The Solicitor General (SG) disagreed and said,
“This is an isolated case. It is not vulgar but it is perverse. I saw the show also out of curiosity.. humour is one thing, vulgarity is one thing, and perversity is another level. Leave alone man and woman.. me and AG cannot see it together. The judges cannot see it together. Let him stay quiet for some time .. Assam called him. He did not come.”
Justice Surya Kant responded,
“Instruct your IO. Let him know the date and time. He is obligated and he will join. Now on the show. He was called to a show as a speaker.. it was not his show..”
The SG insisted,
“No one can watch that show also.”
Justice Kant agreed, saying,
“Yes Mr. Abhinav also said that he too cannot defend the language.”
Justice Kant further commented,
“There are some people who are writing articles on free speech etc .. we know how to handle them also. Every fundamental right is followed by duty. There are restrictions also.”
Justice Kant also mentioned,
“We hope he may have repentance for what he has done. Now on his own channel.. he will not use any language.. which does not violate moral fabric of society… irrespective of age group. Subject to such moral and decency standards..”
The SG then clarified,
“I don’t want to come in the way of it.”
The Supreme Court recognized that Ranveer Allahbadia employs many people and said,
“Yea there are 280 employees and even their families are at stake.”
The SG suggested that proper guidelines need to be made and said,
“Something needs to be done. Some guidelines need to be laid. Our notions of morality are far different from other countries. In US burning flag is a fundamental right under first amendment and it is a Criminal offence here..”
The Supreme Court acknowledged,
“But we have right to expression, right to speech subject to of course..”
Justice Kant made it clear that the court does not support strict censorship but also does not support a completely unregulated platform.
“But we don’t want any regulatory regime which is about censorship.. but it also cannot be a free for all platform.”
He gave an example of a senior comedian,
“There is a person who is now 75 and does a humorous show.. you should see how it is done. Full family can watch it. That is what talent is. Using filthy language is not talent. There is an element of creativity and talent.”
The SG agreed,
“Yea there are so many comedians who employ good behavior and critique the govt strongly.”
The Supreme Court discussed how some regulatory measures could be useful without restricting free speech too much.
“What can be a limited regulatory measure which can have some control but also not leading to censorship. Everyone has the right to watch what they want. But just because you have commercial interests it cannot be you can say something.”
The SG supported this and added,
“I am all for something so that a methodology is laid down without impinging on someone’s freedom of expression. Free expression should be protected but vulgarity and perversity should not reach our children.”
The Supreme Court emphasized the need to involve all stakeholders in the process,
“Let something be laid down. Let all stakeholders be involved. Let us see what the society is capable to take in and what can be fed. Let us invite the people, bar, and other stakeholders to see what are the measures which are needed.”
The court also pointed out that the Indian Constitution has provisions to balance free speech with morality,
“If you see Article 19(4) it has restriction of public order or morality. This is the afterthought of the constitution makers. It is such a wonderfully drafted document and we need to respect the whim of the makers which represents the will of the entire Indian citizenry.”
Finally, the Supreme Court concluded,
“Ld AG and SG present. They submit that in order to prevent telecast or airing of programs which are not acceptable to the known norms of our society, some regulatory measures may be required. We have requested SG to deliberate upon and suggest such measures which shall not impinge the fundamental right of free speech and expression but also effective enough to ensure that it is within bounds of 19(4). Any draft regulatory measures shall be brought in public domain to invite suggestions from all stakeholders before taking any legislative or judicial measure in this regard. We are inclined to expand the scope of this proceeding.”
Regarding the Assam investigation, the Supreme Court noted,
“SG submits that petitioner has not joined probe in Assam. Petitioner says he had messaged on WhatsApp and has not heard back. Let the IO fix a date and time for the purposes of him to join the probe.”
This decision ensures that while Ranveer Allahbadia can continue his show, it must follow certain moral and decent standards. The Supreme Court is also considering new regulations that balance free speech and public decency in online content.
Ashish Chanchlani’s Last Hearing In Apex Court
The Supreme Court on 21st February requested responses from the Assam and Maharashtra governments regarding a petition from YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani, who seeks to transfer an obscenity case against him from Guwahati to Mumbai.
The FIR was filed over allegations of promoting obscenity on the show India’s Got Latent, where podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia is the primary accused.
Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotishwar Singh noted that Chanchlani has already received anticipatory bail from the Gauhati High Court.
Chanchlani’s lawyer mentioned that the plea aims to consolidate multiple FIRs, stating,
“We are basically on which FIR should be considered.”
The Court then issued notices to both states and connected the plea with a similar one filed by Allahbadia.
The controversial episode, filmed on November 14, 2024, at Khar Habitat but aired recently, featured frequent use of abusive language by the panel, including Chanchlani, Allahbadia, comedian Samay Raina, and others.
Earlier, Ashish Chanchlani approached the Supreme Court to quash or transfer an FIR filed against him in Guwahati.
In his petition, drafted by advocate Shubham Kulshreshtha and submitted by advocate Manju Jaitley, Chanchlani requests the quashing of the FIR filed at the Cyber Police Station in Guwahati.
The plea states,
“Quash the FIR bearing No. 03 of 2025 registered at Cyber PS Police Commissionerate, Guwahati Crime Branch, Assam as it was registered later.”
Alternatively, he seeks to transfer the case to the Mumbai Police, arguing that a prior FIR (No. 05 of 2025) was lodged at the Mumbai Police Station.
On Tuesday, the Gauhati High Court granted Chanchlani interim bail while considering his anticipatory bail application and instructed him to appear before the investigating officer within ten days.
Chanchlani’s attorneys contended that he did not make any statements on the show, asserting that the allegations in the FIR pertain only to the co-accused.
The FIR was filed by Guwahati Police on February 10 based on a complaint, citing various sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhtia (BNS), the Information Technology Act, the Cinematograph Act, and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
Earlier, on February 10, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma announced via social media that the Guwahati Police had registered FIRs against five prominent content creators, including Allahabadia and Chanchlani, for allegedly promoting obscenity on the show.
The accused include Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh, Apoorva Makhija, Ranveer Allahbadia, and Samay Raina, among others.
The FIR filed against the influencers for engaging in sexually explicit and vulgar discussions in a show titled ‘India’s Got Latent.’
According to Sarma’s post, the Guwahati Crime Branch registered the case under Cyber PS Case No. 03/2025.
The legal sections invoked include:
- Sections 79, 95, 294, and 296 of BNS 2023
- Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 (which pertains to publishing or transmitting obscene content in electronic form)
- Sections 4/7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
- Section 4/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
If found guilty, the accused YouTubers could face severe legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. The Cinematograph Act and IT Act impose strict penalties for obscenity and the transmission of inappropriate content online.
Case Title:
ASHISH ANIL CHANCHLANI Versus STATE OF GUWAHATI AND ANR. W.P.(Crl.) No. 85/2025
Ranveer Allahbadia’s Last Hearing In Apex Court
The Supreme Court on Feb 18 stopped the police from arresting YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, also known as BeerBiceps, in the cases filed against him in Maharashtra, Assam, and Rajasthan. These cases were registered because of the obscene and vulgar remarks he made on a recent episode of the show India’s Got Latent.
After Allahbadia requested the court to combine all the cases and asked for protection from arrest, Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order. The court gave him temporary protection but also instructed him to cooperate with the police investigation in all cases.
Additionally, he and his team were told not to host any other show for the time being.
“Arrest of petitioner under the Mumbai and Guwahati FIRs shall be stayed subject condition that shall join investigation as and when summoned. Interim protection from arrest is granted on the premise that full cooperation has to be given without any lawyer inside police station,”
-the court ordered.
The court further added that this order is also based on the condition that Allahbadia and his associates
“shall not do any other show for the time being.”
Another important directive was that no new cases should be registered against Allahbadia regarding the remarks he made in the show.
Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Order
- Allahbadia’s arrest is put on hold for all the cases filed against him.
- No new FIR should be registered against him for the India’s Got Latent episode, which led to the current FIRs.
- Allahbadia has the right to ask for police protection in Maharashtra and Assam if he faces any threats that stop him from joining the investigation.
- If a similar FIR is filed in Jaipur, his arrest will still be on hold.
- He must submit his passport to the Thane police.
- He cannot leave India without permission from the Supreme Court.
- He and his team cannot host any other show until further orders.
‘You Cannot Take the Society for Granted’: Supreme Court on Allahbadia’s Remarks
The Supreme Court strongly criticized Allahbadia for his words and said that being famous does not give him the right to say anything he wants.
“Somebody thinks that because I have become so and so popular, I can speak any kind of words and take entire society for granted…you tell us anyone in the world who would like such words!”
‘If You Can Seek Cheap Publicity, the Person Extending Threat is Also…’
During the hearing, lawyer Abhinav Chandrachud pointed out a serious threat made against Allahbadia, stating,
“Please see my interim application. ‘Ranveer Allahabadia ki zubaan kaatkar laane wale ko milega 5 lakhs ka inaam’ is the threat.”
Justice Surya Kant responded, saying,
“If you can seek cheap publicity by using abusive language, this person extending threat is also seeking publicity.”
‘The Words You Have Chosen, Parents Will be Ashamed’
The Supreme Court expressed strong disappointment at Allahbadia’s remarks, stating that they were shameful for society.
“The words you have chosen, parents will be ashamed, sisters will be ashamed. Entire society will feel ashamed. The pervert mind. The perversion you and your henchmen have exhibited! We have judicial system, bound by rule of law. If there are threats, law will take course,”
-said Justice Surya Kant.
‘Arrest of Petitioner in Maha and Assam FIRs Shall Remain Stayed’
Providing relief to Allahbadia, Justice Kant ordered,
“Issue notice. Meanwhile, arrest of petitioner in Maharashtra and Assam FIRs shall remain stayed, subject to his joining investigation. Further subject to his cooperating fully…he won’t be accompanied by counsel inside police station.”
Big Relief to Ranveer Allahbadia!
The Supreme Court further directed that:
“(i) No further FIR shall be registered against petitioner on the basis of episode aired on show India’s Got Latent
(ii) petitioner shall be at liberty to approach local police of Maharashtra and Assam for protection of his life and liberty in case of threat.”
Ranveer Allahbadia Cannot Leave Country Without Court Permission
The court made it clear that if any more FIRs with the same allegations are filed in Jaipur, his arrest will remain on hold. Additionally, it ordered,
“Petitioner shall deposit his passport at Thane police station. He shall not leave country without prior permission of this court,”
-said Justice Surya Kant.
No Other Show to be Aired Until Further Notice: SC
The Supreme Court also ruled,
“Petitioner or his associates shall not air any other show till further orders.”
Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing Allahbadia, told the court that the YouTuber has been receiving death threats, all because of a 10-second video clip.
“Petitioner has got death threats.. 5 lakh reward for cutting his tongue. Former wrestler says he should not be spared in any party we meet him. All for a 10-second clip,”
-Chandrachud said.
However, the Supreme Court was not sympathetic and instead questioned Allahbadia’s choice of language and conduct.
“Are you defending the language used?”
-Justice Kant demanded.
Chandrachud, as an officer of the court, responded,
“As an officer of the court, I am disgusted at the language used.”
The Bench then questioned what Allahbadia considered to be the standards of obscenity and vulgarity.
“So what are the parameters of obscenity and vulgarity? In a society that has some self-evolved values, and when we behave within those parameters, we want to know what are the parameters of Indian society according to the petitioner.”
The court firmly stated that the language used by Allahbadia was obscene.
“If this is not obscene, then what is? You can show your vulgarity anytime and show the depravity…”
-Justice Kant remarked.
The Bench also noted that, contrary to Allahbadia’s claims, there were only two FIRs against him—one in Mumbai and one in Assam—allowing him to defend himself separately in both.
“There are only two FIRs. One in Mumbai and one in Assam. Liberty is a separate issue. It is not that every case is targeted at you and you are entangled. Suppose 100 FIRs are there, he can say he cannot defend himself.”
Chandrachud then pointed out that a third FIR had been registered on Sunday.
“A third FIR was registered on Sunday,”
-he stated.
However, the Court clarified that the allegations in the FIRs were different.
“There are some allegations in one FIR and not in another. Please, he used obscene and filthy language against the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh… so allegations are different. If you kill one person and attempt to kill another, then both 302 and 307 will be invoked,”
-the Court explained.
The Supreme Court criticized Allahbadia, saying that a person cannot take advantage of his popularity to say anything he wants.
“Such behaviour has to be condemned. Just because you are popular, you cannot take the society for granted. Is there anyone on earth who will like this language? There is something very dirty in his mind which has been vomited. Why should we protect him?”
-Justice Kant asked.
The Court reiterated that there were no multiple FIRs but only two or three, and that Allahbadia could defend himself separately in both cases.
“If there are only two or three FIRs, then you defend yourself. Once you are entangled in so many FIRs, there is a strong impediment against your right to defend yourself, and thus, the court must protect you. But just because a litigant can afford and approach the Supreme Court, then I would like to know, can the court intervene in such a case?”
-the Bench questioned.
The Supreme Court also refused to consider the death threats as a reason to grant Allahbadia relief.
“One of the court accused has been threatened with acid attacks,”
-Chandrachud pointed out.
However, the Court dismissed it, saying,
“That is okay. Threats are there every day. The State can take any action.”
Chandrachud then highlighted another serious threat made against Allahbadia.
“Ranveer Allahabadia ka zubaan kaatne wale ko milega 5 lakh.”
Yet, the Bench remained unsympathetic.
“So what? You uttered such words for popularity, and now threats are also issued for the same. There were also threats against a sitting CM, and we proceeded against him too. We knew the threat giver was a poor fellow,”
-Justice Kant pointed out.
CASE TITLE:
RANVEER GAUTAM ALLAHABADIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
