During the hearing, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Mr. Allahbadia but not before criticizing his remarks related to the issue. The court also imposed certain restrictions on him.
NEW DELHI: Today, 18th Feb, The Supreme Court of India recently heard a petition filed by popular YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia. The case concerns the controversial show “India’s Got Latent,” and the court raised concerns about the regulation of “obscene” content on platforms like YouTube and social media.
The bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, expressed its concerns about such content being easily accessible to the public and questioned the Centre on its plans to regulate it.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Mr. Allahbadia but not before criticizing his remarks related to the issue. The court also imposed certain restrictions on him.
The bench asked the Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati, who was representing the government in another case, whether the Centre had any plans to address the issue of “obscene” content on YouTube and social media platforms. The court specifically mentioned the controversial show “India’s Got Latent” as an example of such content that raises concerns.
The court emphasized that the issue was “serious,” and called for assistance from the additional solicitor general and the solicitor general in the next hearing of Mr. Allahbadia’s petition.
The bench highlighted the need for a careful examination of the matter, given the potential impact on how content is regulated on the internet.
Today’s Hearing
YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, popularly known as BeerBiceps, moved to the Supreme Court on Feb 14th to challenge multiple police cases filed against him in different states. These cases were registered because of his “obscene and vulgar” comments in a recent episode of the reality show India’s Got Latent.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court strongly criticized popular podcaster Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia for his remarks made on his online show, India’s Got Latent.
The bench, consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, expressed deep disapproval of Allahbadia’s comments, emphasizing that such behavior should be condemned. However, despite their harsh words, the Court ultimately decided to protect him from arrest in connection with several FIRs filed against him in different parts of the country.
The Court remarked, “There has to be a height of lack of responsibility. This kind of condemnable behavior … that somebody thinks himself that ‘I can, because now I have become so and so popular and therefore I can speak any kind of words and that I can take the entire society to be granted.’”
Justice Kant further stressed the severity of Allahbadia’s actions, stating that the language used was highly inappropriate and insulting.
The Bench said, “You tell us anyone on the earth would like these kind of words to be told. You are insulting people, parents also. We don’t want to say, there is something very dirty in his mind that has been vomited by way of this program.”
They continued to criticize the offensive nature of the words, noting that Allahbadia’s choice of language would shame many people.
“The words which you have chosen, parents will feel ashamed. Daughters and sisters will feel ashamed. Your younger brothers will feel ashamed. The entire society feels ashamed. The kind of words… the perverted mind and the perversity you and your henchman have executed.”
When Allahbadia’s legal counsel, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, presented the petition against the FIRs filed against him in Mumbai, Gauhati, and Jaipur, Justice Kant immediately asked whether he was defending the language used by the podcaster.
“As an officer of the court, I personally am disgusted by what the petitioner has said but whether it rises to the level of a criminal offence is another question,” advocate Chandrachud responded.
This response prompted the Court to seek a further explanation on what would legally constitute obscenity. Chandrachud argued that merely using profanity would not be enough to classify something as obscene.
“If something excites, in the words of the court, lustful thoughts or sexual thoughts in the mind of a reasonable person, that would be obscenity,” Chandrachud added, referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Apoorva Arora case.
The Bench, however, did not agree with this explanation. Justice Kant clarified that it wasn’t simply about provoking lustful thoughts. He questioned the broader values of society and the responsibility that people, especially those in the public eye, should uphold.
“It’s not the question of arousing the lustful thoughts. The question of what is ultimately what is the parameters of the vulgarity in a particular … where … it’s not the question of personal opinion .. but in a case where the society has broadly some self-evolved values and where yourself as a senior and responsible citizen commit ourselves to behave within those parameters. What are those parameters or values we would like to know from the petitioner and so-called the artist … that how do you behave yourself.”
The Court further pressed for clarity on the standard for obscenity, asking whether Allahbadia’s remarks, if not considered obscene, would set a dangerous precedent.
“We have seen the judgment… therefore you have got a license to speak all kind of vulgarity and you can exhibit your depraved mind anywhere and anytime? This is the standard?”
Justice Kant also mentioned that the content of Allahbadia’s program appeared to be inspired by foreign shows, particularly Australian programs. The Court acknowledged that certain societies take precautions when airing such content.
“We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know he has copied from Australian program… there are certain societies where they warn you. There are adult channels they warn you that children are not to watch this kind of program, the patients, the elder people may also not watch this program, they will give you a warning even to those who have little more kind of a moral fabric, even they will warn them also that the contents may not be convenient for you. They will they maintain all these precautions.”
Background
The controversy began when Allahabadia made a joke on India’s Got Latent, which led to a strong public backlash. Following this, multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered against him in Mumbai and Assam.
The Assam Police named Ranveer Allahabadia and four other influencers in the FIR, accusing them of “promoting obscenity and engaging in sexually explicit and vulgar discussion” during the show. After the complaint, a police team from Assam traveled to Mumbai to interrogate the individuals involved.
The case was officially registered with the Guwahati Crime Branch on February 10, based on a complaint from Alok Boruah, a resident of Guwahati. The complaint targeted several well-known YouTubers and influencers, including:
- Ashish Chanchlani
- Jaspreet Singh
- Apoorva Makhija
- Ranveer Allahabadia
- Samay Raina
The FIR includes charges under various laws, such as:
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
- IT Act, 2000
- Cinematograph Act, 1952
- Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
The controversial episode was recorded on November 14, 2024, at Khar Habitat but was aired recently. The show featured continuous use of offensive language by its panel members, including Ranveer Allahabadia, comedian Samay Raina, and YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani.
As a result of the controversy, FIRs were lodged against Allahabadia in both Maharashtra and Assam. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and the Supreme Court has set a date for hearing the petition.
Case Title: RANVEER GAUTAM ALLAHABADIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025
