New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday asked the Centre to frame regulations to stop the airing of programmes that do not meet the “acceptable moral standards of our society,” particularly on social media platforms, while ensuring such measures do not “impinge” the fundamental right to “free speech”.
The court did this while expanding the scope of YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s petition, which sought the clubbing of the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him for his remarks on the YouTube show ‘India’s Got Latent’.
“There should be a limited regulatory measure, but it must not lead to censorship. There should be, however, an element of control because, after all, it’s the question of our school children in impressionable age getting affected,” said the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh.
The bench also hit back at “briefless” lawyers for defending Allahbadia’s conduct in the media and criticising the top court for looking into regulations against obscene and vulgar content on social media. The court also allowed Allahbadia—popularly known as ‘BeerBiceps’—to resume his podcast ‘The Ranveer Show’, provided he furnishes an undertaking that he would not breach general “standards of morality and decency”.
Also Read: Ranveer Allahbadia’s relief from arrest comes with an earful from SC over ‘perverted’ language
Balance free speech rights & societal interests
Last month, Allahbadia and several other participants of India’s Got Latent came under fire for a comment made on one episode of the YouTube show that was deemed obscene.
On 18 February, while protecting Allahbadia from arrest in multiple FIRs registered against him over the remarks, the Supreme Court restrained him and other co-accused named in the cases from posting any online videos.
The top court also asked Attorney General R. Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta whether the government was planning to impose any legal regime to regulate content on social media and YouTube, which, according to the judges, had become a “complete nuisance”.
In compliance with this direction, both law officers were present before the court Monday.
Mehta pitched in to say that in today’s age, even children have access to the online media and, therefore, it was imminent to have some guidelines so that “we do not compete with vulgarity abroad”. “Our notions of morality are different. In America, burning of a national flag is a fundamental right, but we (in India) have it as a criminal offence,” he submitted.
The solicitor general cited the example of comedians who are very critical of the government but do so without crossing any lines and by “employing good humour”.
The bench agreed with him and gave the Centre time to devise the regulatory scheme while emphasising that every fundamental right in the Constitution comes with a duty.
It said, “Our society’s standard of morality is different. In some areas, we are very liberal. Therefore, we think there should be a regulatory regime, but that should not lead to censorship. But we cannot allow free for all as well.” They said criticism was welcome in a democracy, but the quality of humor should be enjoyable for the entire family. “That is talent and not the use of filthy language. Humor is also an art and has an element of creativity. We have had excellent comedians in Bollywood,” the judges remarked.
The bench acknowledged that each individual has the right to watch content of their choice, but perversity cannot be allowed on account of commercial venture and interest. “No fundamental right comes on a platter. This guarantee comes with a duty,” the bench said.
The bench further said the regulatory measures that the government brings must strike a balance between free speech rights and societal interests. It highlighted Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as well as its clauses 2 and 4 that allow the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right.
The judges said that rights can be restricted on the grounds of public order or morality.
“It talks about restriction on morality,” the court said, adding, “Our constitutional founders also thought of it. They were wise, and therefore, none of the provisions have become obsolete. Even after 100 years, they will not become obsolete. We have to respect the makers and complete their will, which is the wish of every Indian citizenry.”
After preparing the draft regulatory measure, the court said the government could bring them into the public domain and invite suggestions from all stakeholders before taking any legislative or judicial measure. “Let’s have a debate on it, invite opinion from all stakeholders and identify to what extent is the society ready to accept. We cannot feed something to our society with something for which it is not prepared,” the bench said.
It added that deliberations on the regulatory measures would continue even after the disposal of Allahbadia’s petition.
Resumption of Allahbadia’s show
At the outset of the hearing, Allahbadia’s lawyer, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, pressed his request for modification of the court’s 18 February order barring the YouTuber from posting content online. He argued that Allahbadia would be deprived of his livelihood if he was not allowed to air his programme, ‘The Ranveer Show’.
Chandrachud said that the order would not just impact his client’s ability to support his litigation but also have a bearing on the future of the 280 people with him.
The court then accepted the YouTuber’s application requesting modification of the order, keeping in mind the livelihood of the employees.
However, it said this was under the condition that his programme would not contain content that has a direct bearing on the merits of his cases.
The bench did not accept his plea for permission to travel abroad, considering that the investigation in the FIRs registered against him was still pending. Reiterating that he should assist the police in their probe, the bench said it would look into his request for foreign travel later when he is no longer required to join any inquiry.
Earlier, Mehta, who was also appearing for the governments of Maharashtra and Assam, complained to the court about Allahbadia’s non-compliance with the condition that required him to report to the police for investigation. Mehta claimed that the YouTuber had failed to appear before the Guwahati Police, despite receiving their notice.
Chandrachud denied the allegations and explained that his client could not appear before the police as he was not informed about the exact date and time. At this, the bench directed Assam Police to notify Allahbadia on when and where they wanted him to be present.
During the hearing, the bench said it hoped that Allahbadia had “repented” for “what he has done”.
“Even his lawyer conceded that he will not be able to defend the words chosen by him. We are confident that the petitioner has realised it too,” remarked Justice Surya Kant.
He also criticised one of the participants of India’s Got Latent for making fun of previous court proceedings during his visit to Canada. He was referring to fellow YouTuber Samay Raina, who mentioned the case during a comedy set in Edmonton. “The youngsters think they are oversmart and that our generation is outdated. They don’t know the jurisdiction this court enjoys and what can be done,” the judge said, adding, “We don’t want to do (anything right now) … because they are young. But we expect them to behave.”
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: Ranveer Allahbadia isn’t the first. Kunal Kamra to Vir Das, many others faced legal action