The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday (February 18) granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia (aka Beer Biceps) in the FIRs registered at Mumbai, Guwahati, and Jaipur for the offence of obscenity over his remarks during an episode of the “India’s Got Latent” show.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents on the writ petition filed by Allahabadia against the multiple FIRs. The bench also directed that no further FIR be registered with respect to the same show. The interim protection is subject to the condition that he joins the investigation and cooperates with it. The bench also gave him the liberty to approach the police for protection against threats.
The bench further directed that the interim relief is subject to the condition that the petitioner or his associates shall not air any other show till further orders. He has also been directed to deposit his passport. Even though the Court granted him interim relief, during the hearing, the bench severely berated Allahabadia for the language he used and described it as “dirty” and “perverted.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 18) granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia (popularly known as Beer Biceps) in the FIRs registered at Mumbai, Guwahati and Jaipur for the offence of obscenity over his remarks during an episode of the “India’s… pic.twitter.com/qLzBheVWFk
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 18, 2025
Observations by the Bench, especially by the Justice J. Kant
Advocate Dr Abhinav Chandrachud appeared for the petitioner, Ranveer Allahabadia, seeking clubbing of FIRs. He submitted that the petitioner had received death threats. The first threat was in Maharashtra, then in Assam, and now in Jaipur. There is a reward for harming him. The offence alleged is under Section 153A (promoting hatred).
Justice J. Kant questioned whether the counsel was defending the statements made. Dr Chandrachud clarified that he was not defending the statements and found them personally disgusting. He submitted that the issue was whether the statements amounted to a criminal offence.
Justice J. Kant asked about the parameters of obscenity and vulgarity. He questioned if the statements did not qualify as obscenity in this country and if so, what would. He remarked on the language used, stating that it could not be justified under free speech.
The bench noted that only two FIRs had been filed so far. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that there were multiple complaints across the country and that the second FIR constituted an abuse of process. Justice J. Kant asked for proof that both FIRs contained the same allegations and pointed out that the complaints had different specifics.
Dr Chandrachud argued that the Guwahati FIR was more comprehensive. Justice J. Kant noted that it dealt with different offences and emphasized the need for responsibility. He condemned the behaviour, stating that the issue was not about individual morality.
Justice J. Kant observed that the petitioner had insulted parents and spread perversion through the program. He questioned why courts should favour him. He criticized the belief that popularity grants a person the right to speak in any manner. He asked if any society in the world would accept such language.
Also Read: Devotion or Delusion? Rohini Arzu Claims Spiritual Bond with Ranveer Allahbadia
Dr Chandrachud cited legal precedents. He informed the Court that one of the co-accused had received acid attack threats. He compared the situation to the Nupur Sharma case, where threats were issued for worse remarks. He submitted that a second FIR constituted an abuse of process.
Dr Chandrachud referred to his interim application, citing a threat offering a reward of Rs. 5 lakh to cut the petitioner’s tongue. Justice J. Kant remarked that if the petitioner sought cheap publicity through abusive language, the person issuing threats was also seeking publicity.
Justice J. Kant criticized the language used by the petitioner, stating that it would shame parents and society. He called the behaviour perverse. He reassured that threats should be handled within the judicial system and the rule of law.
Justice J. Kant stated that people cannot hold someone guilty and that the Court does not support threats. Justice J. Singh assured that the state would provide protection if required. The bench objected to a co-counsel accompanying the accused to the police station.
Dr. Chandrachud referred to a statement made by a former Indian WWE wrestler. Justice J. Kant dismissed the relevance of the statement, suggesting that the wrestler was not getting matches. He observed that wrestlers are among the most innocent players.
Justice J. Kant remarked on the embarrassment caused to parents. He noted that the petitioner had copied the question from another source. He pointed out that certain societies issue warnings about inappropriate content, while precautions were not maintained in this case. Dr. Chandrachud responded that the content was paid and locked.
Dr Chandrachud submitted that a subscriber had extracted a 10-second clip from a 45-minute show meant for adults. He informed us that the petitioner’s mother, a doctor, was being harassed by people who posed as patients.
Justice J. Kant issued a notice. He ordered that the petitioner’s arrest in Maharashtra and Assam FIRs shall remain stayed, provided he joins the investigation and fully cooperates. The petitioner shall not be accompanied by his counsel inside the police station.
Justice J. Kant directed that no further FIRs shall be registered against the petitioner based on the show episode. He allowed the petitioner to approach local police in Maharashtra and Assam for protection if needed.
Justice J. Kant stated that if a similar FIR was filed in Jaipur, the petitioner’s arrest would also remain stayed. The petitioner must deposit his passport at Thane Police Station and cannot leave the country without prior court permission.
The order is subject to the condition that neither the petitioner nor his associates shall air any new show until further orders.
Several FIRs were filed against Allahabadia and others after he made offensive comments on Samay Raina’s YouTube show, sparking the uproar. YouTube stars Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh, and Apoorva Makhija are among the people named in the Assam case, in addition to Allahabadia and Raina.
On February 10, Guwahati Police registered an FIR against five YouTubers and content creators for “promoting obscenity and engaging in sexually explicit and vulgar discussion.” The Maharashtra Cyber Department and Jaipur Police have also registered cases related to the controversy.
Notably, in 2024, Allahabadia was presented the Disruptor of the Year award at the National Creators Award by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In related news, YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani has moved the Gauhati High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR lodged against him by Guwahati Police over the alleged obscene and controversial comments made in an episode of India’s Got Latent.
