Today, On 15th July, The Supreme Court asked comedian Samay Raina and other influencers to respond to a plea alleging they mocked disabled persons in a YouTube show, stating firmly, “Article 19 cannot override Article 21” during the hearing.
The Supreme Court began heard petitions filed by well-known YouTubers Ranveer Allahbadia and Ashish Chanchlani, who have approached the Court to club together and cancel multiple FIRs filed against them related to a YouTube show.
The matter was taken up by a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
As the hearing began, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court,
“There are three matters before the Court.”
Calling the jokes made by stand-up comedian Samay Raina and others about people with disabilities and rare diseases “disturbing,” the Supreme Court said that it will “scrutinise individual conduct minutely.”
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, who appeared for M/s SMA Cure Foundation, told the bench that the respondents had been asked to be present before the Court, and they had complied.
She said,
“The respondents were directed to be present, and they are here.”
The bench asked a straight question to the petitioner’s side,
“What do you want today?”
Then the Court clearly reminded the parties that there should be no confusion about their demands. It said,
“There is no if and buts. You must have read the petition you tell us what you want.”
The Court had previously called for regulatory measures to ensure the implementation of “reasonable restrictions” on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Today, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani stated that there is a need to discuss the proposed guidelines. Justice Kant concurred, emphasizing that all stakeholders should provide their perspectives on the matter.
Justice Kant remarked,
“There are many free advisors in the market. Ignoring them…the guidelines should be in conformity with constitutional principles balancing freedom and where the rights and duties start. We will have open debate on such guidelines. Let all stakeholders also come and give their viewpoints,”
The Court added,
“Suppose a race takes place between Article 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump over Article 19,”
Along with Allahbadia’s plea, the petition filed by the Cure SMA India Foundation, which accuses Raina of making insensitive comments regarding the high costs of treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy, was also on the agenda. Raina is additionally alleged to have mocked a person with a disability.
The petition seeks regulations for broadcasting online content that violates the right to life and dignity of persons with disabilities.
In May, the Supreme Court directed the Mumbai Commissioner of Police to ensure the presence of Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakar (also known as Sonali Aditya Desai), and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar in court for the next hearing.
Today, Raina and the others appeared before the judges, and their counsel requested more time to file their counter affidavit regarding the Cure SMA India Foundation case.
The Court ordered, while accepting the request,
“No further time shall be granted. Let rejoinder, if any, be filed after one week thereafter. Post the matter thereafter,”
The Court also underlined the seriousness of the case and the nature of the complaint.
It said,
“The petitioner has brought upon a very sensitive and disturbing issue. We will scrutinise the conducts and misconducts very minutely.”
Attorney General Venkataramani then said that it was important to check if the existing guidelines can be enforced properly.
He said,
“Enforceability of the guidelines is crucial; I’d like time to examine them.”
Justice Surya Kant responded positively and agreed to grant more time for this. He also made a significant constitutional point about the balance between the right to free speech and the right to life and dignity.
He said,
“We can allow more time. The guidelines must align with constitutional principles balancing freedoms with their limits and duties. The right to dignity flows from another’s claimed right as well, when there’s a conflict, Article 19 cannot override Article 21, Article 21 takes precedence.”
The matter has now been listed for further hearing after two weeks, and the Court will continue to examine all aspects, including the legal responsibilities of online influencers, the role of the content guidelines, and the balance between free speech and personal dignity.
Also Read: YouTubers Ranveer Allahbadia and Apoorva Mukhija Apologize to NCW for Offensive Comments
However, the Court mandated that Raina, Goyal, Ghai, and Tanwar must remain present at the next hearing, while allowing Thakkar to appear online “in view of peculiar facts and circumstances.”
The Court cautioned,
“Any absence shall be viewed seriously,”
It also stated that their conduct, as alleged in the case, would be scrutinized closely.
The Court noted,
“Individual conduct…we will scrutinize them minutely because issues pointed out by SMA is quite disturbing also,”
Earlier this year, in February, the Court had stayed the arrest of Allahbadia regarding first information reports (FIRs) filed against him in Maharashtra, Assam, and Rajasthan for his obscene remarks, but prohibited him from conducting shows.
A few weeks later, the Court permitted him to resume his podcast, The Ranveer Show, on the condition that it does not violate general standards of morality and decency.
Earlier, on February 18, the Supreme Court had passed an order stating that “no coercive action” should be taken against Allahbadia for his alleged obscene remarks made on the YouTube show “India’s Got Latent.”
CASE TITLE
(1) RANVEER GAUTAM ALLAHABADIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025
(2) ASHISH ANIL CHANCHLANI Versus STATE OF GUWAHATI AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 85/2025
(3) M/S. CURE SMA FOUNDATION OF INDIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
