E-Paper
SC allows podcast, wants new law for social media
Allahbadia had sought protection from arrest in criminal cases linked to distasteful and obscene remarks he made on a YouTube show
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed podcaster and YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia to resume his podcast even as it nudged the Union government to formulate regulatory measures to check obscenity on social media and YouTube channels, underlining that such measures must not amount to censorship but remain within constitutional bounds.
The court’s remarks came while hearing a plea by Allahbadia, who had sought protection from arrest in criminal cases linked to distasteful and obscene remarks he made on a YouTube show.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also allowed Allahbadia to resume his podcast, “The Ranveer Show”, subject to an undertaking to maintain “standards of decency and morality.”
As it suggested in an earlier hearing, the bench has now formally expanded the proceedings to deliberate on the broader issue of online content regulation by urging the government to draft tentative regulatory measures that focus on balancing free speech with the need to curb content deemed excessively obscene or offensive.
“There is no absolute fundamental right on a platter in this country and all rights come with corresponding duty…We do not want a regulatory regime that leads to censorship. No stakeholder should advocate that but to say it is free-for-all and anybody can say anything would also be dangerous,” remarked the bench as it deliberated upon potential anti-obscenity regulation, directly linked to the controversy surrounding Allahbadia’s statements made during an appearance on a show called India’s Got Latent last month.
Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government and the states of Assam and Maharashtra, argued that content such as the one in question was not just vulgar but “perverse” to the extent that even he and the attorney general (AG) R Venkataramani were unable to stomach it.
Acknowledging the potential implications of such regulation for online content creators, the court clarified that while it was not advocating blanket censorship, there was a pressing need for a structured framework to regulate content on social media platforms.
“Think what can be regulatory measures that must be balanced and also not lead to censorship. An individual’s right to watch or hear anything is there but just because you have a commercial venture, it should not be that you can say or do anything,” observed the bench.
The bench also added that humour, a key element of many YouTube and social media programs, “is not about using obscene and vulgar language,” but an art that requires creativity and appropriate expression.
The discussion in court revolved around how best to balance the constitutional right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a) with the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which allows for regulation in the interest of public decency and morality. The bench noted that while moral standards evolve over time and differ across societies, India has been “very liberal with respect to a lot of things” but still recognises the need for safeguards against content that could harm social values.
As for Allahbadia, the bench said it hoped “he has some repentance now,”but acknowledged the impact of restrictions on his livelihood. His lawyer, senior advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, had contended that the condition restraining him from podcasting was affecting not only him but also the 280 employees working for his enterprise. The court took a nuanced view, allowing him to resume his podcast but directing him to ensure his content adheres to standards that make it watchable for a general audience, including families.
The court order specifically stated that Allahbadia’s future shows must maintain standards of decency and morality “so that an audience of any age group could watch.” Additionally, it clarified that the content should not reference the ongoing proceedings before the court. His request to travel abroad for recordings was deferred, with the bench stating that this would be considered only after he cooperates with the ongoing investigation in connection with FIRs registered at Gauhati and Mumbai. The bench also extended Allahbadia’s interim protection from arrest, as granted by it on February 18,
Recognising the broader implications of the case, the court directed AG Venkataramani and SG Mehta to propose regulatory measures to address obscene content online while ensuring compliance with constitutional protections. “Something needs to be done about the penetration of such vulgar programs,” argued SG Mehta, suggesting that a balance must be struck to protect children and future generations from inappropriate content.
The court, in turn, suggested that any proposed regulations should be put in the public domain to seek inputs from stakeholders before being implemented through either judicial or legislative means.
The court order stated: “Learned AG and SG submit that with respect to the telecast or airing of programmes which are not acceptable to the known moral standards of our society, some regulatory measures are required. We have suggested them to deliberate and suggest some regulatory measures that do not impinge upon rights of free speech and expression but at the same time are effective enough to meet the parameters of such fundamental rights as available under Article 19(2) and (4).”
It added: “Any such proposed measures should be put in the public domain to invite suggestions from stakeholders before any legislative or judicial measures are taken. We expand the scope of this proceedings for this purpose.”
The Supreme Court had previously granted interim protection from arrest to Allahbadia on February 18 while strongly criticising his remarks as “perverted” and “disgusting”. The same bench slammed Allahbadia’s comments as a “complete nuisance”, asserting that such content was degrading societal values.
Despite its strong disapproval, the court agreed to shield Allahbadia from arrest.
