New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday granted YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia—popularly known as “BeerBiceps”—protection from police arrest in the criminal cases registered against him over remarks made during an episode of YouTube show ‘India’s Got Latent’. The protection is subject to Allahbadia joining the investigation and staying away from the show.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, however, gave an earful to the YouTuber’s counsel, Abhinav Chandrachud.
“The words you (Allahbadia) have chosen, parents will feel ashamed, daughters and sisters will feel ashamed, brothers will feel ashamed, entire society will feel ashamed…the pervert mind and the perversion you and your henchmen have exhibited,” the Bench told Chandrachud, who conceded that his client’s language was “disgusting”.
Chandrachud clarified he was not defending his client’s words, but argued that the incident was not that serious to invite a criminal prosecution.
Allahbadia moved the Supreme Court to club the multiple FIRs registered against him in Thane, Guwahati and Jaipur after a video clip from the show went viral.
The court Tuesday also sought the Centre’s views on regulation of social media content and asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani or Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court on this.
The Bench also ordered that no fresh FIR be registered with respect to the same show, while also giving Allahbadia the liberty to approach the local police for protection against threats to enable him to join the investigation.
Allahbadia has also been asked to deposit his passport with the Thane Police. He can leave Maharashtra only with the local court’s permission.
Earlier, Chandrachud opened his arguments by claiming that Allahbadia’s remarks did not amount to obscenity, which, according to recent top court judgments, would be an act that excites lustful thoughts.
At this, the court described Allahbadia’s language as “dirty” and “perverted”. When Chandrachud took support of a top court ruling to question the obscenity charges, the Bench shot back: “Does that judgment give you the licence to exhibit your depravity anywhere and use this kind of language?”
The Bench also debated over what constitutes obscenity and said it would like to know from Chandrachud how to define obscenity in a society that follows “self-evolved values”.
“We would like to know if this is not obscenity, then what is obscenity,” the Bench observed.
Justice Kant termed Allahbadia’s conduct as amounting to “lack of responsibility”, adding that it is “condemnable behaviour”. “Somebody thinks that because I now have become popular, I can speak any kind of words and I can take the entire society for granted,” the judge said.
When Chandrachud said that he couldn’t “defend the morality”, Justice Kant said, “It is not the question of any individual’s morality. We would have understood if one person had said that I don’t like these kind of words. You tell us, would anyone on earth like these kind of words? You are insulting people’s parents also. There is something that is dirty in his mind that has been vomited by way of this programme. Why should courts entertain this kind of person?”
The court also countered Chandrachud’s claim that his client was facing several cases and pointed out that there were only two—one in Thane and the other in Guwahati.
“It’s not a case where every state has booked you and you are entangled in 100 FIRs,” it said, while highlighting the difference between the two. Since the court was unaware of the third FIR in Jaipur, it refrained from commenting on its nature.
When Chandrachud contended the content of the two FIRs was the same, the court intervened to say, “There are some set specific allegations in one and missing in the other.” The judges pointed out that the Guwahati FIR was related to Allahbadia’s remarks against Arunachal Pradesh.
“The two FIRs deal with different kinds of offences, which were committed on the same platform, but happened simultaneously,” the Bench said.
When Chandrachud read out the threats issued to Allahbadia, the court responded: “If you want to be popular by using cheap language, someone else also wants to be popular.”
“Language used by him is better than the one used by you. Words chosen by you would make everyone feel ashamed. Perversity has been executed,” the Bench told Chandrachud, when the latter objected to the language employed in the “serious threats”.
The court took serious note of the fact that a lawyer had accompanied a co-accused in the case to the police station when she was summoned for questioning.
On being informed that the channel on which the show was aired was locked with access only to subscribers, the Bench said this embargo was merely for commercial gains. The channel, it said, should have put out a warning regarding the content of its shows.
“When you are doing such kinds of shows, you must also take precautions. You should know what kind of precautions should be taken,” it added.
(Edited by Sudha V.)
Also Read: Ranveer Allahbadia isn’t the first. Kunal Kamra to Vir Das, many others faced legal action