Supreme Court On Ranveer Allahbadia: Prior Restraint Or Stifling Of Free Speech?

It was a full court when Ranveer Allahbadia’s case came up for hearing in the Supreme Court on February 18, 2025. The bench granted the YouTuber relief by staying multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against him for his alleged obscene remarks made during an online comedy show, India’s Got Latent. But not before imposing conditions.

🌠The bench, which comprised Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the case. After much admonishment from the bench, Allahbadia’s relief was mixed—the SC stayed the FIRs against him filed in Guwahati and Jaipur, shielding him from immediate arrest. The court also ordered him not to post anything else on his YouTube channel or other social media platforms.

Allahbadia, who runs a popular YouTube channel under the name BeerBiceps, creates content for a living, and by the last estimate, he earns about Rs 35 lakh a month doing so. Despite the SC’s harsh words on his remarks in the comedy show India’s Got Latest🎃, the 31-year-old content creator has not been found guilty of obscenity or any other crimes at present.

𝓀This pre-emptive restriction on the content creator’s speech, known as prior restraint, is relatively uncommon in Indian jurisprudence and has sparked discussions about its necessity and proportionality.

𒅌Calling the order “heavy-handed” senior advocate Pinky Anand points out: “Whilst granting bail, it is the duty of the court to set such conditions necessary to achieve the following objects: first, to secure the presence of the accused; second, the proper course of investigation; and third, the need to ensure a fair trial. In view of this, it is my opinion that a gag-order does not ensure any of the aforesaid objectives that our courts are tasked with balancing.”

Historically, the Indian judiciary has been cautious in endorsing prior restraints, recognising their potential to stifle free discourse. In 2002, the SC had ruled in the Khushwant Singh vs Menaka Gandhi ♓case that an injunction should not be granted at the pre-publication stage. 

Twenty years later, in the 2022 case, Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court 🥀granted bail to journalist Mohammed Zubair, who faced multiple charges for his social media posts. The court declined to impose a condition restraining Zubair from tweeting, asserting that such a blanket order would have a chilling effect on free speech. The bench emphasised that prohibiting an individual from expressing their opinions, especially when social media serves as a primary medium for their professional activities, would be disproportionate and unjustified.

ꦛAllahbadia’s case presents a stark contrast. Here, the Supreme Court has opted to enforce a gag order, preventing the dissemination of content by the accused.

ꦺ“This is not a case of the court asking someone to take down what is offensive but it is anticipating that what he may say in the future may be offensive. And that is completely barred by law, by the jurisprudence. The court has a remedy if something happens later—prosecute them. Pre-censorship can't happen,” says senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal.

ꦰThe Supreme Court’s decision to impose a gag order in Allahbadia’s case appears to stem from the nature of the allegations and the potential impact of the content on public sensibilities. The court described Allahbadia’s remarks as “disgusting”, “filthy” and “insulting”, reflecting its disapproval of the content in question. By restricting further broadcasts, the court ostensibly aims to prevent additional dissemination of material it deems offensive. However, Allahbadia’s guilt has not yet been established and as Anand points out, “it is a well-established practice that a grant of bail is as a rule granted without entering into the merits of a case.”

Allahbadia’s case and the SC’s order also presents a conundrum since his fundamental right to freedom of speech hangs in limbo while the investigation against him is ongoing. In 1988, the SC had, in a corruption-related case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak🔴, pointed out that the then-Chief Minister of Maharashtra, accused of corruption, was entitled to a trial as part of his fundamental rights.

Interestingly, the show India’s Got Latent🐼 is a ticketed show for which one has to subscribe to access the content. Allahbadia’s remarks came to the public’s attention after a few clips from the paywalled show were shared on Instagram as Reels. This begs the question: Can someone’s freedom of speech, for saying something behind essentially closed doors, be taken away merely because portions of it were published by a third person on a public platform?

ꦅAnother question that arises from the SC’s order is the question of restraint of trade. Allahbadia is a professional content creator, earning up to Rs 35 lakh from the videos and podcasts he posts online. Kirpal likens the situation to a journalist being restrained from publishing any articles after being sued for defamation.

♎“This is moving on to almost penury. How will he earn his money? How will he then defend himself in court cases? This is something that can't be undone. Supposing tomorrow he is acquitted, and in the meantime, he's been restrained from earning money—who will compensate him? This loss has been caused to him not by any person so he can't sue any person. This loss would be caused to him by the court and he can’t take any action against the court to recover the money so he’s completely remedy-less,” says Kirpal.

The Allahbadia case also brings to the forefront the broader issue of regulating online content in India. The Supreme Court said that there was a “vacuum” in the regulation of digital content, has sought the assistance of the Attorney General to address this lacuna. The Information Technology Ministry is expected to brief a Parliamentary Standing Committee about the existing framework to regulate social media and the need for amendments to bring the platforms under legal scrutiny to “safeguard the societal values” within a week, The Indian Express had reported.

🔯This move indicates a judicial and legislative intent to establish more stringent oversight for online platforms, which, while potentially curbing objectionable content, may also impinge upon creative freedom and open discourse.