World
India
The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly condemned YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia for his controversial remarks on comedian Samay Raina’s YouTube show India’s Got Latent, stating that his words reflected a “perverted mindset” and questioning why the judiciary should extend protection to him.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh addressed arguments presented by Allahabadia’s lawyer, Abhinav Chandrachud, who claimed that his client was facing multiple FIRs across the country. However, Justice Kant countered this claim, clarifying that only two FIRs—one in Mumbai and another in Guwahati—were currently registered. Chandrachud contended that additional complaints were emerging nationwide and cited the TT Antony case to argue that multiple FIRs for the same offense were legally impermissible. The court, however, rejected this argument, noting that the allegations in each FIR pertained to different statements and were not identical.
Justice Kant made sharp remarks on the language used by Allahabadia, particularly concerning its impact on social values and dignity. “The words you have used bring shame to parents, sisters, daughters, and society as a whole. It reflects a deeply disturbing mindset,” he remarked.
Furthermore, the court took issue with statements perceived as offensive towards the people of Arunachal Pradesh. Justice Kant noted that the “humiliating” nature of these comments had led to a separate FIR specifically addressing them. “This is not just about profanity; the statements are degrading and humiliating to an entire community,” he asserted.
The bench also expressed skepticism over claims that Allahabadia was receiving death threats, suggesting that sensationalist remarks might invite similar responses. “If you seek cheap publicity by making such statements, there may be others who try to gain attention by issuing threats in return,” Justice Kant observed.
A separate point of contention arose when Chandrachud mentioned that one of his colleagues was mobbed after visiting the police station. The court questioned the necessity of a lawyer physically going to a police station, stating, “Under which law did the lawyer go? Just because one can pay for legal services, does it mean lawyers should be involved in such acts? This disrespects the uniform as well.”
While the court granted interim protection from arrest, it upheld restrictions preventing Allahabadia from airing similar content during the legal proceedings. The case continues to spark a debate on free speech, public decency, and the accountability of digital influencers.
