Entertainment
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia Amidst Obscenity Allegations
On Feb 18, 2025, the Supreme Court interceded. It gave YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia interim protection. He faced arrest in multiple FIRs. The FIRs originated in Mumbai, Guwahati, and Jaipur. They allege he voiced obscene remarks. These aired on a YouTube show. The Court shielded him but assailed his language. It decried it as “perverted” and “dirty”.
The Court rebuked Allahbadia’s words. Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh judged the language. Justice Kant grilled the defense. “Are you excusing the language used?” he asked. Abhinav Chandrachud defended Allahbadia. He conceded the remarks were distasteful. He denied they comprised a crime. He cited the Apoorva Arora case. That ruling stated profanity doesn’t equal obscenity.
The Court dissented. Justice Kant pressed, “If this isn’t obscenity, what is?” He probed if the ruling allowed unchecked speech.
During arguments, Chandrachud cited death threats. Justice Kant evoked Nupur Sharma’s case. He stated she received relief despite “worse” words. The Court vowed legal safeguards, but scorned poor language.
The bench notified respondents. It banned more FIRs about the same content. Allahbadia received interim relief. He must cooperate with the probe. He may seek police protection.
Chandrachud noted multiple FIRs. He cited the TT Antony case. Multiple complaints are barred for one offense. Justice Kant countered the FIRs. They addressed diverse statements. He claimed one FIR flagged slurs against the Prime Minister.
Allahbadia spoke on “India’s Got Latent.” Samay Raina hosted. The show ignited controversy. It supposedly promoted vulgarity as comedy. Legal actions pursued against show participants, including Allahbadia.
The Court’s act highlighted freedom. It stressed societal norms and laws. It granted arrest protection. It clarified obscene language is unacceptable. It may face legal review.
The Court criticized strongly. It ensured due process too. This situation also featured threats.
The Supreme Court intervened again. The language was very offensive. This led to multiple legal cases. The court rebuked the poor choices. The bench scrutinized the language used. It balanced free expression carefully. This case sparked fierce debate online.
