Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Feb 18: After rapping into the controversial You Tube personality Ranveer Allahabadia for his indecent comments on parents and sex during an episode of the stand-up show “India’s Got Latent,” that has rocked the social media, the Supreme Court on Tuesday provided some temporary relief to him accepting his plea protecting against arrest and blocking further police cases against him.
A two-judge bench of the apex court said no further police cases should be filed against him and that he should not be arrested till further orders. Ranveer Allahbadia faces not only multiple police cases but also a summons from the National Commission of Women (on March 6, after skipping one for Monday, citing the death threats and a Rs 5 lakh bounty on his head) and, possibly, questions from a parliamentary panel too.
Two others – show host Samay Raima and participant Apoorva Makhija – also reported threats; both are named in police cases, as has Ashish Chanchalani, another social media influencer. The court also said Mr Allahbadia, who claimed death threats to his family and himself, could approach Maharashtra and/or Assam police for “protection of life and liberty, in case of threats.”
He was also told he would not be arrested, by either Maharashtra or Assam cops, so long as he cooperates with the investigation, or on the basis of a third complaint filed in Jaipur. Mr Allahbadia, however, was told to deposit his passport with police in Maharashtra’s Thane, and warned not to try and leave the country without the court’s nod. He was also told neither he nor his associates could participate in any further stand-up comedy or ‘roast’ shows till further notice.
On Tuesday morning a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh convened to hear Allahbadia’s plea to seek anticipatory bail against possible arrest by Guwahati Police, which last week sent a team to his apartment in Mumbai to question him, and clubbing of all FIRs filed against him in different states.
The hearing began with Mr Allahbadia’s lawyer, Abhinav Chandrachud, the son of the previous Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud, in the court’s crosshairs over his position on the comments. Mr Chandrachud declared himself “personally disgusted” by what Mr Allahbadia said; “I cannot defend on moral grounds,” he said, but also pointed out “… whether it (the comment in question) rises to the level of criminal offense is another question.”
The court, though, appeared initially disinclined to agree with Mr Chandrachud; Justice Kant was particularly irate, declaring, “If this is not obscenity in this country, then what is!?”
The hearing then turned into a fierce tongue-lashing for the Youtuber with Justice Kant declaring “there is something dirty in his mind that is spread by this programme” and demanding to know “why should the court entertain such persons.” “What embarrassment he has caused to his parents? We know from where he has copied the question. There are certain societies where they warn who are not supposed to watch such programmes… (referring to age-restrictions for TV programmes) they maintain precautions.”
“… but just because somebody thinks ‘I am popular, I can speak anything and take society for granted’ … you tell us, who in the world would like such words?” Justice Kant raged. “The words you have chosen… parents will be ashamed, and sisters will be ashamed. The entire society will feel ashamed. The perversion you and your henchmen have exhibited!”
Eventually, though, the court also acknowledged the issue of death threats, saying, “We have a judicial system… we are bound by the rule of law. If there are threats, the law will take its course. We are not supporting this (the threats). I am sure the State will provide necessary protection…” The court, finally, also accepted Mr Allahbadia’s submissions, giving him temporary protection from arrest and blocking further police cases against him.
On Saturday Mr Allahbadia confessed to feeling “scared” by the threats to his life but insisted he would not back down. “I am watching death threats pour in from people saying they want to kill me… hurt my family,” he said, also claiming an ‘invasion’ of his mother’s medical clinic. After he failed to appear before the cops, cops from Mumbai and Guwahati went looking for him at his home in the former city, only to find the door locked and the social media personality – whose requests to record his statement at his home had been turned down – missing.
So far, the Mumbai cops, acting on a complaint from a BJP functionary, have recorded the statements of seven individuals; these include Ms Makhija and Mr Chanchalani. Separate investigations are being conducted by Guwahati Police and Maharashtra’s Cyber Department. Mumbai Police has not filed a case so far.
After the row broke, Allahbadia offered an apology and blamed a lapse in judgement. “My comment wasn’t just inappropriate… it was not even funny. Comedy is not my forte, I am just here to say sorry,” he said in a video message. He also acknowledged he had misused his platform. “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. On Saturday, apologising again for his remarks, Mr Allahbadia said, “My remark about parents was insensitive and disrespectful and I am genuinely sorry”.
But while protecting him from arrest and further FIRs, the Supreme Court came down sharply on Allahbadia over his distasteful comments. “There is something very dirty in his mind which has been vomited. Why should we protect him?” “What are values of society? What are these parameters, do you even know? Society has some self-evolved values. You need to respect them,” the court rapped.
“In name of freedom of speech, no one has licence to speak whatever they want against norms of society.” “Words you have used will make daughters, sisters, parents and even society feel ashamed. These are the levels of depravity you and your henchmen have gone to.” “You uttered such words for popularity and now threats are also issued for the same.” “We are not in ivory towers and we know how he copied and Australian show content. There are warnings in such shows.” “If this is not obscenity, what is it? Why should we quash or club FIRs against you,” the court asked.
At one stage, the bench also came down heavily on Allahbadia’s counsel and questioned him, “Do you subscribe to the language that he has used? What is the parameter of obscenity? There is height of irresponsibility. They believe that since they’ve become popular they can say anything. There’s dirt in his mind. Why should court favour such a person?”
The top court added, “Just because somebody thinks he has become so popular and can speak any kind of words, can he take the entire society for granted? Is there anyone on earth who will like this language? There is something very dirty in his mind that has been vomited, says the Supreme Court. As the podcaster’s lawyer claimed that Allahbadia is getting threats, Justice Surya Kant said, “if you can seek cheap publicity by using abusive language, this person (who has threatened the petitioner) extending the threat is also seeking publicity.”
Ranveer Allahbadia’s lawyer apprised the top court about a social media post which offered Rs 5 lakh to anyone “bringing his (Allahbadia) tongue.” Replying to which, Justice Kant said, “His language is still better than yours. We disapprove threats but let law take its own course.”
Meanwhile, the bench has directed Allahbadia to cooperate in the probe of the FIRs lodged at Maharashtra and Assam.
