Earlier this week, Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh of the Supreme Court of India granted permission to Ranveer Allahbadia to resume *The Ranveer Show* on his YouTube channel, Beer Biceps. The podcast had been temporarily halted after Allahbadia made controversial remarks during an entertainment program, which sparked widespread public outrage and condemnation across India.
This decision marks the second relief granted to Allahbadia by the Court. In a prior hearing, the Court had ordered a pause on *The Ranveer Show* “until further notice” and stayed the filing of new First Information Reports (FIRs) against the podcaster.
**The Trial’s Intensity**
During the recent hearing, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing Allahbadia, highlighted the impact of the Court’s decision on the livelihoods of the 280 employees working on *The Ranveer Show*. He argued that the show’s suspension directly affected their jobs and financial stability.
On the opposing side, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government and the states of Maharashtra and Assam—where FIRs were filed against Allahbadia—described the podcaster’s remarks as “vulgar,” “perverse,” and “deeply troubling.” Mehta urged the Court to keep the show suspended for some time and called for stricter guidelines on content creation to prevent similar incidents.
Mehta also pointed out that Allahbadia had failed to appear before the Gauhati Police for investigation despite being summoned. Chandrachud countered this claim, stating that Allahbadia had sent two letters to the police requesting a suitable date and time for the investigation but received no response.
**The Court’s Decision**
The Court ultimately sided with the argument emphasizing the importance of protecting the livelihoods of Allahbadia’s employees. However, it also imposed strict moral guidelines on the content produced by Allahbadia and other content creators in India. The justices emphasized that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and must adhere to moral and legal boundaries.
The Court directed the Union government to propose a “very limited” set of guidelines for content creation that would not infringe on free speech but would ensure responsible content. It also recommended that the government consult stakeholders and the public to develop a balanced regulatory framework. “Everyone can contribute, and then we can determine the safest regulatory measures,” the Court stated.
Additionally, the Court instructed the Gauhati Police to promptly provide Allahbadia with a date and time for his investigation. It also decided to address the travel ban imposed on Allahbadia in a separate hearing.
**The Controversial Remarks**
The controversy stemmed from a question Allahbadia posed during the February 9 episode of *India’s Got Talent*: “Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once and stop it forever?” This remark triggered widespread backlash, leading to multiple FIRs and even death threats against Allahbadia. Following the incident, both Allahbadia and Samay Raina, the creator of the show, issued public apologies and removed all previous episodes of *The Ranveer Show*.
The remark gained significant attention, making headlines and prime-time news, largely due to Allahbadia’s popularity as a YouTuber and podcaster. Known for hosting both local and international celebrities, Allahbadia’s work had garnered widespread acclaim, but the incident also brought intense criticism.
**Public and Political Reactions**
While a significant portion of the Indian population supported Mehta’s concerns about the nature of content being produced, others criticized the state’s handling of the situation. Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, remarked, “It feels like the state is trying to make an example out of Allahbadia.” Opposition lawmaker Saket Gokhale echoed this sentiment, stating on social media platform X, “Crass content can be criticized if it offends you. However, you cannot have the state persecute and lock up people for offending your ‘moral sentiments.'”
Some comedians and commentators also criticized the media for its one-sided coverage of the incident and its blanket condemnation of digital content creators.
**Broader Implications**
This incident has sparked widespread debate about the boundaries of free speech, the consequences of provocative content, and the need for responsible content creation within the framework of India’s obscenity laws. It has also raised questions about the role of the state in regulating digital content and the balance between freedom of expression and moral accountability.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing conversation about the freedoms and limitations of speech in India’s rapidly evolving digital landscape.
