Top Court Allows Ranveer Allahbadia To Resume Show, Asks Centre A Question

There is a need to balance morality and freedom of expression, the Supreme Court said today, asking the Centre to keep this in mind before laying down guidelines for digital content in the aftermath of the massive row over YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia's crass remarks.

The 31-year-old YouTuber, earlier restrained from shooting any show, has been allowed to resume his podcast, The Ranveer Show. The court, however, said he must provide an undertaking that his shows will maintain desired standards of morality so that viewers of any age group can watch them.

Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as The BeerBiceps Guy, sparked a huge uproar last month when he made a crass remark at roast show, India's Got Latent. During an appearance on the show hosted by comic Samay Raina, Allahbadia asked 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 video of the remark drew widespread criticism as social media users contended that vulgarity was being passed off as comedy on digital platforms. Multiple police complaints were filed against Ranveer Allahbadia, Samay Raina and others linked to the show.

Amid the row, Allahbadia apologised for his comments and said "comedy is not my forte" and that "it wasn't cool". The 31-year-old posted an apology message on X with the caption, "I shouldn't have said what I said on India's got latent. I'm sorry." In the video message, he said, "My comment wasn't just inappropriate, it was not even funny. Comedy is not my forte, I am just here to say sorry."

Mr Allahbadia said he had been flooded with questions asking if he planned to use his platform in this way. "Obviously this is not how I wish to use it. I am not going to give any context or justification or reasoning behind whatever happened. I am just here for an apology. I personally had a lapse in judgement. It wasn't cool on my part," he said.

Allahbadia's counsel Abhinav Chandrachud urged the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh to lift the restriction on his show because it employs about 280 people.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Allahbadia's remarks were "not vulgar, but perverse". "I saw the show also out of curiosity. Humour is one thing, vulgarity is one thing, and perversity is another level. Leave alone man and woman... me and AG cannot see it together. The judges cannot see it together. Let him stay quiet for some time," he said.

Justice Surya Kant said some people were writing articles on free speech. "Every fundamental right is followed by duty. There are restrictions also," he said.

When the Solicitor General said guidelines need to be laid, Justice Kant said, "We don't want any regulatory regime which is about censorship, but it also cannot be a free-for-all platform."

The top court said using filthy language is not talent. "There is a person who is now 75 and does a humour show. You should see how it is done. The full family can watch it. That is what talent is. Using filthy language is not talent," Justice Kant said.

The court said something should be laid down and all stakeholders should be involved in the process. "Let us see what the society is capable to take in and what can be fed. Let us invite the people, bar and other stakeholders to see what measures are needed," it said.

The court underlined that the Constitution has provision to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and morality. "This is the afterthought of the constitution makers. It is such a wonderfully drafted document and we need to respect the whim of the makers which represents the will of the entire Indian citizenry," it said.

The bench said it has asked the Solicitor General to suggest measures that shall not impinge on the fundamental right of free speech and expression but are also effective enough to ensure that it is within the bounds of morality. Draft regulatory measures shall be brought in public domain and suggestions should be taken from all stakeholders before any legislative measure, the court said.