The Supreme Court on March 3 permitted YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia to resume his podcast, The Ranveer Show, subject to him furnishing an undertaking that his content will maintain the desired standards of morality and decency so that viewers of all age groups can watch.
Allahbadia had filed an application in the apex court seeking the lifting of a previous order that restricted him from airing his shows. The court acknowledged that his livelihood—and that of his 280 employees—depended on the telecast and, therefore, allowed him to resume his show.
The controversy erupted after Allahbadia appeared on the YouTube show India’s Got Latent, hosted by comedian Samay Raina. A highly inappropriate question posed by Allahbadia—”Would you rather watch your parents… or join in once and stop it forever?”—triggered massive public outrage, leading to FIRs against him in Maharashtra and Assam. Complaints were also lodged against Raina, comedian Apoorva Mukhija, and others involved in the show.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, slammed the content as “not vulgar, but perverse.” “Humour is one thing, vulgarity is one thing, and perversity is another level,” he told the court. He further remarked, “Let him remain silent for some time.”
In addition to allowing Allahbadia to resume his podcast, the Supreme Court extended the interim protection granted to him from arrest in the FIRs filed in Maharashtra and Assam. However, the court did not shy away from emphasising the need for stricter regulations on digital content.
The apex court noted that the Attorney General and Solicitor General suggested implementing measures to prevent the broadcast of content that goes against society’s moral standards. The court asked the Centre to explore regulatory mechanisms that would not infringe on free speech under Article 19 but would ensure content remains within acceptable boundaries.
“Any draft regulatory measure in this regard can then be put in the public domain to invite suggestions from stakeholders before taking any legislative or judicial measure in this regard,” the Supreme Court stated.
