Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 3: The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a ban on the controversial podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia from airing his online shows and allowed him to resume airing his “The Ranveer Show” subject to maintaining “morality and decency” and an undertaking that it was suitable for all ages.
The ban was lifted only after the top court severely criticised his crass jokes said there should be a clear divide between humour and perversity shown or spoken on online shows and social media. “Using vulgar language for audience engagement is not talent,” a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh remarked even as the top court continued its protection to him against any arrest.
He was allowed airing his shows following an undertaking that his shows would maintain standards of decency and morality. This came amid controversy over ‘vulgar’ language used by Allahabadia on Samay Raina’s ‘India’s Got Latent’ show.
In its February 18 ruling, the Supreme Court had imposed a condition on Allahbadia to not air any shows for his interim protection from arrest in the FIRs registered by the Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Assam Police over his obscene remarks.
However, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh lifted the ban on ‘The Ranveer Show’ on the basis that Allahabadia was employing 280 persons and that he was solely dependent on YouTube videos/podcasts for his livelihood.
The Bench was hearing an application filed by Ranveer Allahbadia seeking a modification of a clause in the court’s February 18 order allowing him interim protection from arrest on the basis of FIRs lodged in Maharashtra and Assam concerning his comments about parents and sex in the show ‘India Got Latent.’ The clause in question barred him from airing or telecasting shows, podcasts.
Justice Kant agreed with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and said humour was something that a family sitting together would be able to enjoy and laugh at without embarrassment. The court agreed to consider the question of framing regulatory measures in this regard after hearing submissions and inputs from stakeholders.
Appearing for Mr Allahbadia, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud said his client had “no sense of humour” but the prohibition would affect his client’s livelihood and that of the 200-odd people he employed for his own show. The application further requested the court to allow him to travel abroad.
Mr Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the States of Maharashtra and Assam, said Mr Allahbadia did not come when summoned by the Gauhati Police. “He has not joined investigation,” the top law officer said. Mr Chandrachud responded that Gauhati Police did not respond when Mr Allahbadia had Whatsapped the Investigation Officer the date and time when he should be present at the police station for questioning.
Justice Kant said his request for travelling abroad would be considered after he joined the investigation. Meanwhile, the court said the interim protection from arrest for Mr Allahbadia would continue.
Allahbadia, aka ‘BeerBiceps Guy’, is facing police inquiries in multiple states, including Maharashtra and Assam, while also being summoned by the National Commission for Women and is likely to face a Parliament panel. He landed in trouble after asking a contestant, “Would you rather watch your parents have sex for the rest of your life, or would you join in once and stop it forever?” on Raina’s show.
A viral video of the remark quickly surfaced, sparking outrage as social media users condemned the vulgarity being passed off as comedy on digital platforms. As a result, several police complaints were filed against Ranveer Allahabadia and other members of the show.
Amid the row, Allahbadia apologised for his comments and said “comedy is not my forte” and that “it wasn’t cool”. The 31-year-old posted an apology message on X with the caption, “I shouldn’t have said what I said on India’s got latent. I’m sorry.” In the video message, he said, “My comment wasn’t just inappropriate, it was not even funny. Comedy is not my forte, I am just here to say sorry.”
Mr Allahbadia said he had been flooded with questions asking if he planned to use his platform in this way. “Obviously this is not how I wish to use it. I am not going to give any context or justification or reasoning behind whatever happened. I am just here for an apology. I personally had a lapse in judgement. It wasn’t cool on my part,” he said.
The podcaster moved the Supreme Court against the FIRs lodged over his alleged distasteful comments, seeking the clubbing of all FIRs filed in different states, including Assam and Mumbai.
Attempting to strike a balance between moral standards and freedom of expression, the Supreme Court urged the Centre to come up with some regulatory measures that must have some element of control without resorting to censorship.
“We don’t want any regulatory regime which leads to censorship…but it can’t be a free-for-all. See the quality of humour he has… humour is something the entire family can enjoy, and nobody feels embarrassed. Using all filthy language is not talent,” the top court said.
“With regard to telecast or airing of programmes which are not acceptable in terms of known moral standards of our society, some regulatory measures may be required. We have requested SG to suggest some measures which are effective to ensure the parameters of fundamental rights as delineated in Article 19. Any draft regulatory measure in this regard can then be put in the public domain to invite suggestions from stakeholders…We are inclined to expand the scope of these proceedings,” said the bench.
The top court said using filthy language was not talent. “There is a person who is now 75 and does a humour show. You should see how it is done. The full family can watch it. That is what talent is. Using filthy language is not talent,” Justice Kant said.
The court said something should be laid down and all stakeholders should be involved in the process. “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 measures are needed,” it said.
The court underlined that the Constitution has provision to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and 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,” it said.
The bench said it has asked the Solicitor General to suggest measures that shall not impinge on the fundamental right of free speech and expression but are also effective enough to ensure that it is within the bounds of morality. Draft regulatory measures shall be brought in public domain and suggestions should be taken from all stakeholders before any legislative measure, the court said.
