Rakia Imran
On 3rd March, 2025, the Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh permitted YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as BeerBiceps, to resume hosting his podcast, ‘The Ranveer Show’. The Apex Court issued this ruling in response to a petition filed by Allahbadia after he was subjected to multiple criminal cases nationwide due to controversial remarks made by him and other members of a judges’ panel on an episode of ‘India’s Got Latent‘. Earlier, the Court had granted him interim protection from arrest with several conditions, including a restriction on appearing in any show.
Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, appearing on behalf of Ranveer Allahbadia, contended before the Supreme Court that the restriction preventing Allahbadia from hosting his podcast was having significant consequences, not just for him but also for his team of nearly 280 employees who depended on the show for their livelihood. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the Court reconsidered the condition and ruled that Allahbadia could resume his podcast, provided that its content adheres to decency standards and does not contain any vulgar statements.
“As of now petitioners were restrained from airing any shows. 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“, the Court ordered.
Today, the Supreme Court suggested that it may consider extending the scope of the present case to analyze whether new regulations should be formulated to prevent the broadcast of obscene speech in public domains. To ensure that any such measures do not encroach upon the constitutionally protected Right to Free Speech and Expression, the Apex Court sought recommendations from Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta on how to strike an appropriate balance between content regulation and fundamental rights.
The controversial episode of ‘India’s Got Latent‘, currently under judicial scrutiny, was filmed at Khar Habitat on November 14, 2024, but was only aired recently. YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani, in addition to Ranveer Allahbadia, has petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss an FIR registered against him in Assam, arguing that a similar case had already been filed in Mumbai. As an alternative, he requested the transfer of the case to Mumbai. The Gauhati High Court had earlier granted him anticipatory bail. In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court issued a scathing critique of Allahbadia, calling his statements in the show obscene, degrading, and reflective of a perverse mindset.
The Bench raised concerns over whether unrestricted vulgarity could be justified under the guise of artistic expression, emphasizing that the language used in the show was deeply offensive to society, parents, and women. In today’s proceedings, the Supreme Court was seen to expand the scope of the case to assess the boundaries of constitutionally protected free speech. Again, with reference to Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta’s submission, the Court said, that certain regulatory measures may be necessary to curb the broadcast of content that violates the established moral and cultural norms of Indian society. Representing the Governments of Maharashtra, Assam, and Rajasthan, SG Mehta further argued that the remarks in question were not only vulgar but also perverse in nature.
“Something needs to be done. Some guidelines needs 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”, SG Mehta said.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta emphasized the need for clear guidelines to regulate content, pointing out that India’s moral values differ significantly from those of other countries. With reference to the US, he noted that while burning the national flag is protected as a fundamental right under the First Amendment in the United States, it is considered a criminal offense in India. Justice Surya Kant clarified that while the Court was not advocating for a regulatory framework that led to censorship, digital platforms could not be allowed to operate without any restrictions.
He further observed that humor and obscenity do not necessarily have to be intertwined, with reference to a 75-year-old comedian known for his family-friendly content. According to Justice Kant, true talent lies in creativity and the ability to engage audiences without adding any vulgar language to it. In response, SG Mehta pointed out that many comedians criticize the government while maintaining decorum and good behavior.
The Bench ultimately affirmed SG Mehta’s stance, agreeing that regulatory measures should be introduced without crossing into censorship.
Case Name: Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia v. Union of India and Ors. and Ashish Anil Chanchalani v. State of Guwahati and Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025 and W.P.(Crl.) No. 85/2025
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
