The Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance morality and freedom of expression while guiding the Centre on digital content regulations, following controversy surrounding YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s inappropriate comments on “India’s Got Latent.” Allahbadia has resumed his podcast but must ensure it meets moral standards suitable for all audiences. His remarks garnered backlash, leading to police complaints and an apology where he admitted his comments were inappropriate and unfunny. The court stressed that while free speech is vital, it should not compromise public morality and called for stakeholder involvement in developing guidelines to prevent vulgarity in digital content.
The Supreme Court emphasized today the importance of finding a balance between morality and freedom of expression, urging the Centre to consider this before establishing guidelines for digital content following the significant controversy surrounding YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s inappropriate comments.
Ranveer Allahbadia, a 31-year-old YouTuber who was previously prohibited from producing any shows, has been permitted to recommence his podcast, The Ranveer Show. However, the court stipulated that he must submit an assurance that his programs will uphold the necessary standards of morality to ensure they are suitable for viewers of all ages.
Last month, Ranveer Allahbadia, widely recognized as The BeerBiceps Guy, ignited substantial backlash when he made a crude comment during the roast show, India’s Got Latent. While appearing on the show hosted by comedian Samay Raina, Allahbadia posed a question to a contestant: “Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once and stop it forever?”
A viral clip of this comment incited widespread condemnation, with social media users arguing that vulgarity was being presented as comedy on digital platforms. Several police complaints were subsequently filed against Ranveer Allahbadia, Samay Raina, and others associated with the show.
In the midst of the uproar, Allahbadia issued an apology for his remarks, stating that “comedy is not my forte” and that “it wasn’t cool.” The 31-year-old shared an apology message on X, stating, “I shouldn’t have said what I said on India’s Got Latent. I’m sorry.” In a video message, he acknowledged, “My comment wasn’t just inappropriate; it wasn’t even funny. Comedy is not my forte, I am just here to say sorry.”
Allahbadia shared that he received numerous inquiries about how he intended to use his platform. “Obviously, this is not how I wish to use it. I am not going to provide any context or justification for what happened. I am just here to apologize. I personally had a lapse in judgment. It wasn’t cool on my part,” he remarked.
Abhinav Chandrachud, representing Allahbadia, urged the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh to lift the restrictions on his show, noting that it supports approximately 280 jobs.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, argued that Allahbadia’s comments were “not vulgar, but perverse.” “I viewed the show out of curiosity. Humor is one thing, vulgarity is another, and perversity is a different level altogether. Leave alone man and woman… even me and the AG cannot watch it together. The judges cannot watch it together. Let him remain quiet for a while,” he stated.
Justice Surya Kant remarked that some individuals are discussing free speech in their writings. “Every fundamental right comes with a duty. There are also restrictions,” he noted.
When the Solicitor General suggested the need for guidelines, Justice Kant replied, “We do not desire a regulatory regime that serves as censorship, but it also cannot be a free-for-all platform.”
The Supreme Court stated that using offensive language does not equate to talent. “There is a person who is now 75 and runs a humor show. You should observe how it is done. The whole family can enjoy it. That is what talent is. Using filthy language is not talent,” Justice Kant remarked.
The court insisted that something should be established and that all stakeholders should be included in the process. “Let us examine what society is capable of handling and what can be provided. Let us bring in the public, the bar, and other stakeholders to determine what measures are required,” it asserted.
The court highlighted that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and morality. “This is the foresight of the constitution makers. It is such a wonderfully drafted document, and we must respect the intentions of its creators, which represent the will of the entire Indian citizenry,” it stated.
The bench instructed the Solicitor General to propose measures that will not infringe upon the fundamental right of free speech and expression while ensuring adherence to moral standards. The draft regulatory measures will be made public, and feedback should be gathered from all stakeholders prior to any legislative action, the court concluded.