The Supreme Court of India came down heavily upon YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as ‘BeerBiceps,’ on account of his “obscene,” “disgusting,” “filthy,” and “insulting” remarks on comedian Samay Raina’s YouTube show, India’s Got Latent.
The rebuke came during a hearing on Allahbadia’s plea for the merging of multiple FIRs filed against him for his statements about parents and sexual matters.Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh, who formed the bench, issued interim protection in Allahbadia’s favour, ordering that he could not be arrested for unrelated cases and further problems could be avoided by not filing new FIRs originating from the India’s Got Latent episode.
That being said, the bench heartily reprimanded Allahbadia, expressing grave displeasure at his statements. The court also imposed restrictions on Allahbadia and his associates from airing their programs on YouTube and other platforms until further orders.
Courtroom Scrutiny
The Supreme Court bench did not spare Allahbadia’s comments from criticism at this stage. Justice Kant put it on record whether Allahbadia thought he “had a license to speak all kinds of vulgarity,” implying “there is something very dirty in his mind that has been vomited by way of this program.” The bench said the comments were “disgusting,” “filthy,” and “insulting,” asserting that no one knows where the line should be drawn in society between free speech and vulgarity.
Justice Kant remarked further that the comments made in the program were against the society’s norms, capable of shaming “every parent, daughters, sisters, and younger brothers.” He also noted how after achieving fame, such persons cannot exhibit “condemnable behaviour” where they can speak “any kind of words and take the entire society for granted.”
Arguments and Counterarguments
Standing for Allahbadia, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the multiple FIRs in the present case constituted an abuse of legal process. To support his argument, he referred to TT Anthony v State of Kerala 2001 and Amish Devgan v Union of India 2020, asserting that later FIRs emanating from his comments ought to be treated as matters covered under Section 162 CrPC, with the prohibition against using the statements made by the accused before a police officer in evidence against him.
Chandrachud relied on Apoorva Arora v State 2024 to contend that profanity cannot be termed as obscenity, as comments that instigate lustful thoughts in the mind of a reasonable person may be taken to be profanity. But to this, the bench dismissed stating, “It’s not a question of lustful thoughts, but about the parameters of obscenity, of vulgarity, in a civilised society.” The court went ahead to mention Apoorva Arora, wherein they recognized that vulgar language, profanities and swear words ought to be regulated in the public domain and social media platforms as these pose a threat to impressionable minds like children of tender age.
During the hearing, Chandrachud repeatedly admitted that he “cannot really defend the morality” of the comments and that, as “an officer of the Court,” he was “personally disgusted” by what Allahbadia had said.
Interim Relief and Conditions
While the Court stayed the FIRs against Allahbadia registered at Thane Police Station and Cyber Police Station of Guwahati, it would not grant blanket relief. For the interim protection from arrest, the Court ordered Allahbadia to fully cooperate with the investigation while several conditions were laid out. These conditions are that:
- Allahbadia must deposit his passport with the court.
2. He must not leave the country without the Court’s permission.
3.He must join the investigation whenever summoned by the investigating officers.
Concerns Over Threats and Publicity
Advocate Chandrachud submitted that the strong backlash had led to death threats and systematic harassment of Allahbadia’s family; he stated that the mother of Allahbadia-an eminent doctor-was confronted by a couple of persons who appeared to be patients and cursed her.
However, the bench ignored these pleadings and remarked they were a way of publicizing the matter. Justice Kant observed: “If you can try to gain cheap popularity by using abusive language, as somebody giving threats, he also wants to be popular. The language used in the threat is better than your petitioner’s language.”
Be that as it may, the court did allow Allahbadia to reach out to the local police if credible threats are posed to his life and liberty.
Arguments on Content Accessibility
In his defense, Chandrachud argued that the statements made by Allahbadia were made on a show that was locked behind a paywall and available only to adults who paid an adult subscription fee for it and was never meant for a general audience.
The respected Court did not care for any of it as it had already been observed that snippets of the show had gone viral on social media and the outrage followed suit. The court went ahead and elaborated, “When you copy a dialogue from somewhere, you must also follow the precautions they take. You don’t care about that.”
Author
Syeda Ayesha is a passionate 3rd year BBA LLB student at Sultan-Ul-Uloom College of Law in Hyderabad, with a special interest in criminal law and family law. She has built her academic journey on a solid foundation of legal principles, progressing from basic to advanced levels, and is eager to apply this knowledge in practice. Determined to gain practical experience, she is committed to learning more about the law. Ayesha is excited about the opportunity to work in a dynamic legal environment, which she sees as a valuable avenue for both personal and professional growth.
