Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 83/2025

RANVEER GAUTAM ALLAHABADIA – Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent(s)

Date Of Hearing: 18th February, 2025
Case Citation:
Presiding Judges:

• Justice Surya Kant
• Justice N Kotiswar Singh

Case Summary

Ranveer Allahbadia, a YouTuber best known for his podcast India’s Got Latent, was the subject of multiple formal complaints and legal issues, including allegations that he was promoting obscenity and engaging in sexually explicit conversations. The Supreme Court intervened to defend his right to freedom of speech and expression.

Ranveer Allahbadia was accused of making offensive and demeaning remarks during a podcast session in early 2025. The public was soon made aware of the remarks, which were deemed inappropriate and highly explicit.

His remarks caused people to become outraged when the podcast aired, especially on social media. Significant public outrage resulted from his comments, which were considered offensive and degrading.

Many First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against Allahbadia in a number of states, including Maharashtra, Assam, and Rajasthan, as a result of these divisive remarks. Accusations of obscenity, vulgarity, and encouraging inappropriate behavior were the basis for these FIRs, which were purportedly in violation of several Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether Allahbadia’s comments crossed the limits of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a)?
2. Whether filing multiple FIRs is a violation of the principle of double jeopardy?
3. Whether the comments made by Ranveer Allahbadia constitute obscene and indecent content?

Observation

“There Is Nothing Like A Fundamental Right On A Platter”: Supreme Court Says Rights Come With Duties

“In this country, there is nothing like a fundamental right on a platter. Fundamental rights come with duties, and unless people understand their duties, we know how to deal with such elements,” Justice Kant asserted.

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh expressed concern over the remarks made in the performance and said that even Allahbadia’s lawyer, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, could not defend the language and expressions used. “The fact that nobody, including Allahbadia’s counsel (Mr. Abhinav), would also be able to defend the words chosen, expressions, and everything that was said in the show,” the judge noted.

Justice Kant stated, “We are confident and hopeful that the petitioner has realized his mistake and has some repentance. We also know that some brainless people are writing articles in his defense in the name of freedom of speech, but we know how to handle them.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the Court’s concern over unregulated online content, remarking, “Something needs to be done; some kind of guidelines need to be laid down. We should not be competing with the vulgarity seen abroad. Our notions of morality differ from other countries. The difficulty is that in the USA, for example, the burning of the national flag is a fundamental right under the 1st Amendment; we have that as a criminal offense.”

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, issued the following interim directions:

1. Stay on Arrest: The court granted a stay on the petitioner’s arrest in connection with the filed FIRs in Maharashtra and Assam, on the condition that he assist with the investigation.
2. Consolidation of FIRs: If any additional FIR had been registered in Jaipur (Rajasthan) based on the same allegations, the Court extended the stay of arrest to that case as well.
3. Restriction on Further FIRs: The Court prohibited the registration of any further FIRs against the petitioner based on the same content aired on India’s Got Latent.
4. Right to Protection: The petitioner was given the liberty to seek police protection in Maharashtra and Assam in case of any threats to his life or liberty.
5. Travel Restrictions: The Court directed the petitioner to surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer of the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Thane, and barred him from leaving the country without prior judicial permission.
6. Ban on Further Broadcasting: The petitioner and his associates were restrained from airing any new content on YouTube or other digital platforms until further orders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India & Ors. is a prime example of a well-thought-out plan for balancing the rights of individuals with the interests of the state. The interim relief provided safeguards against any abuse of process, while the limitations guarantee that the probe proceeds without further provocation. This case is likely to set a precedent in addressing legal concerns related to digital content, multi-jurisdictional FIRs, and the broader implications of free expression in the digital era.