Dhananjay.Mahapatra
New Delhi: Supreme Court on Tuesday condemned influencer Ranveer Allahbadia for his offensive remarks on the ‘India’s Got Latent‘ show but shielded him against arrest in FIRs lodged in various states. The court sought assistance of top law officers to “devise something” to stop “anything and everything” from being broadcast on social media under the guise of free speech.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh gave Allahbadia interim protection from arrest in connection with FIRs registered at Thane, Guwahati and Jaipur but restrained him and his associates from airing any show till further orders. The YouTuber had made the offensive remarks as one of the panelists in comedian Samay Raina’s show, which was launched last June.
The bench said, “There is complete lack of responsibility and the behaviour is condemnable. He thinks he is popular and can say anything taking the entire society for granted and get away with it. Would anyone…like the kind of words he used? There is something very dirty in his mind that has been vomited out in this programme.”
As Allahbadia’s counsel said the petitioner was getting life threats, the bench told him to approach local police for protection but asked him not to take his lawyers along while joining the investigations. SC ordered him to deposit his passport with the investigating officer at Thane and barred him from travelling abroad without the apex court’s prior permission.
Alarmed by the deteriorating standards of language and content in certain programmes broadcast on social media, the bench sought the assistance of attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta during the next hearing in “devising something” to regulate “anything and everything” being aired on certain websites and online channels in the name of right to freedom of speech and expression.
As Abhinav Chandrachud defended the controversial remark by attempting to differentiate it from vulgarity or obscenity, Justices Kant and Singh asked, “If this (the remark) is not obscenity, then what is that standard or parameter of obscenity? Do you have a licence to speak all kinds of vulgarity and exhibit your depraved mind anywhere and at any time?”
Citing SC rulings in Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan and Apoorva Arora cases, Chandrachud sought clubbing of the FIRs at one place and said Allahbadia’s statement is not so grave as to invite criminal prosecution. He said SC has explained what is obscenity in the Apoorva Arora case and had said anything that invites disgust and revulsion may not necessarily invite criminal prosecution. Profanity is not obscenity, he said.
Justice Kant asked, “Does Apoorva judgment give you the licence to utter all kinds of nonsense? Look at the depraved and disgusting language you are using. The words you have chosen will put to shame every parent, daughters, sisters as well as brothers and society as a whole. Everyone will feel ashamed by the perverted mind you and your henchmen have exhibited.”
On Allahbadia being threatened on social media platforms, the bench said, “If someone commits a wrong, he would be dealt with by law. People cannot decide who is right or wrong and punish a person by taking law into their own hands. We strongly disapprove of such extension of threats to Allahbadia. But there is no actual threat to your life. As there are only three FIRs, you go and defend yourself.”
“Only because a litigant can afford to approach the highest court straightaway, can he demand that he does not want to go to so many places and that the investigations should be carried out at a place of his choice? If he is getting threats, the state will extend requisite protection to him,” it said.
The bench said the Guwahati FIR is very different from the Thane FIR as the former is more comprehensive and also refers to “dirty, humiliating and insulting language used against the residents of Arunachal Pradesh. There are different ingredients mentioned in the two FIRs.”
In a lighter vein, it said, “If you can try to get cheap publicity by using abusive language, then someone would try to get cheap popularity by threatening on social media. Every day, it happens.”
Chandrachud said the petitioner’s mother is a doctor and that her patients are abusing her at the clinic. The bench said, “He should be ashamed of the mess he has created for himself and pain he has caused to his parents. We know from where he has copied. We know how he has copied from an Australian programme and which actor’s dialogue he has stolen. But these foreign programmes contain all kinds of precautions. But you do not care about putting out those precautions for the public.”
Dhananjay.Mahapatra
New Delhi: Supreme Court on Tuesday condemned influencer Ranveer Allahbadia for his offensive remarks on the ‘India’s Got Latent’ show but shielded him against arrest in FIRs lodged in various states. The court sought assistance of top law officers to “devise something” to stop “anything and everything” from being broadcast on social media under the guise of free speech.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh gave Allahbadia interim protection from arrest in connection with FIRs registered at Thane, Guwahati and Jaipur but restrained him and his associates from airing any show till further orders. The YouTuber had made the offensive remarks as one of the panelists in comedian Samay Raina’s show, which was launched last June.
The bench said, “There is complete lack of responsibility and the behaviour is condemnable. He thinks he is popular and can say anything taking the entire society for granted and get away with it. Would anyone…like the kind of words he used? There is something very dirty in his mind that has been vomited out in this programme.”
As Allahbadia’s counsel said the petitioner was getting life threats, the bench told him to approach local police for protection but asked him not to take his lawyers along while joining the investigations. SC ordered him to deposit his passport with the investigating officer at Thane and barred him from travelling abroad without the apex court’s prior permission.
Alarmed by the deteriorating standards of language and content in certain programmes broadcast on social media, the bench sought the assistance of attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta during the next hearing in “devising something” to regulate “anything and everything” being aired on certain websites and online channels in the name of right to freedom of speech and expression.
As Abhinav Chandrachud defended the controversial remark by attempting to differentiate it from vulgarity or obscenity, Justices Kant and Singh asked, “If this (the remark) is not obscenity, then what is that standard or parameter of obscenity? Do you have a licence to speak all kinds of vulgarity and exhibit your depraved mind anywhere and at any time?”
Citing SC rulings in Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan and Apoorva Arora cases, Chandrachud sought clubbing of the FIRs at one place and said Allahbadia’s statement is not so grave as to invite criminal prosecution. He said SC has explained what is obscenity in the Apoorva Arora case and had said anything that invites disgust and revulsion may not necessarily invite criminal prosecution. Profanity is not obscenity, he said.
Justice Kant asked, “Does Apoorva judgment give you the licence to utter all kinds of nonsense? Look at the depraved and disgusting language you are using. The words you have chosen will put to shame every parent, daughters, sisters as well as brothers and society as a whole. Everyone will feel ashamed by the perverted mind you and your henchmen have exhibited.”
On Allahbadia being threatened on social media platforms, the bench said, “If someone commits a wrong, he would be dealt with by law. People cannot decide who is right or wrong and punish a person by taking law into their own hands. We strongly disapprove of such extension of threats to Allahbadia. But there is no actual threat to your life. As there are only three FIRs, you go and defend yourself.”
“Only because a litigant can afford to approach the highest court straightaway, can he demand that he does not want to go to so many places and that the investigations should be carried out at a place of his choice? If he is getting threats, the state will extend requisite protection to him,” it said.
The bench said the Guwahati FIR is very different from the Thane FIR as the former is more comprehensive and also refers to “dirty, humiliating and insulting language used against the residents of Arunachal Pradesh. There are different ingredients mentioned in the two FIRs.”
In a lighter vein, it said, “If you can try to get cheap publicity by using abusive language, then someone would try to get cheap popularity by threatening on social media. Every day, it happens.”
Chandrachud said the petitioner’s mother is a doctor and that her patients are abusing her at the clinic. The bench said, “He should be ashamed of the mess he has created for himself and pain he has caused to his parents. We know from where he has copied. We know how he has copied from an Australian programme and which actor’s dialogue he has stolen. But these foreign programmes contain all kinds of precautions. But you do not care about putting out those precautions for the public.”