Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as podcaster “Beer Biceps”, finally got some relief 🌟from the Supreme Court on February 18, when he received interim protection from arrest in the FIRs registered against him. But can the judgement be seen as a ‘relief’ by the larger community of media content producers? Perhaps not. The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh has mandated that Allahbadia and his colleagues will refrain from putting up any social media content until further orders in the case. Moreover, the Bench has invited the Attorney General of India and, by extension, the Union government, to regulate online content on popular social media websites.
ꦓThis is a concerning legal precedent on two accounts. By restricting the accused from putting out any social media content, the Bench has executed what, in legal parlance, is understood as a “prior restraint”. A prior restraint is an action that prohibits speech or other forms of free expression even before it has taken place. A prior restraint is not generally applied as it is considered a fairly severe restriction of freedom of speech and expression. In a case such as this, ordering prior restraint is an extraordinary restriction.
ꦦSecondly, the judiciary inviting the executive to “take measures to regulate online content” and expressing prior approval for whatever steps would be taken can have far-reaching consequences on the freedom of expression of citizens at large. It appears to provide a backdoor entry to legislations such as the proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, which was withdrawn by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in 2024, after facing heavy criticism for giving the government undue powers to curtail freedom of speech online.
Many such significant legal debates on freedom of expression have been shaping the discourse on the regulation of mass media in independent India’s history. Prominent among them has been KA Abbas v. Union of India (1970). The journalist, writer and filmmaker Khwaja Ahmad Abbas had approached the apex court when the then government refused to allow Unrestricted Viewership to his documentary “Chaar Sheher Ek Kahani”, unless he deleted certain scenes from his film. The judgement had many important takeaways, but the key among them was the Supreme Court ꧟limiting the role of the government in being the final arbitrator over the censorship or certification of a film. Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act (1952) gave the government the power to overturn the decisions of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). This meant that even if a film was cleared for exhibition by the Board, the government could still revise its certification. Expressing their views on the government’s control over a film’s release, Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court observed, “We express our satisfaction that the Central Government will cease to perform curial functions through one of its secretaries in this sensitive field involving the fundamental right of speech and expression. Experts sitting as a tribunal and deciding matters quasi-judicially inspire more confidence than a secretary and therefore it is better that the appeal should lie to a court or tribunal.”
However, though the government eventually made amendments to the Act to introduce the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)—providingꦿ filmmakers the scope to appeal against unfavourable decisions of the CBFC—they chose to retain the powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. Furthermore, the section was amended to allow the government to overturn the decisions of the FCAT as well. In 1990, Kannada filmmaker KM Shankarappa challenged this amendment in the Karnataka High Court. The Court held that the section was “violative of the basic structure of the constitution” and that “the power of revision conferred upon the Central Government against the order of the Board of Film Certification falling under Section 5-C of the Act interferes with the exercise of judicial power.” The judgement was further reinforced by the Supreme Court.
🅘Eventually, in 2021, the central government brought out the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, which intended to reintroduce the power for the government to reassess films that were already certified by the CBFC. After immense public hue and cry over the possible implications of such unbridled power in the hands of the government and the impending dangers to freedom of expression, the Bill that was ultimately passed in 2023 had this section removed.
In terms of rulings on cases involving social media, the interim bail granted by the Supreme Court to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair in 2022 is also noteworthy. In the cases filed against some of his tweets on the social media platform X, the Uttar Pradesh 𝓰government had pleaded that Zubair’s right to continue tweeting must be curtailed. “A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion—an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold…—would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail,” the Supreme Court Bench had stated. “How can we ask a journalist not to write?” the court had questioned the prosecution.
🍨With the Supreme Court recommendations in the current case of YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, it remains to be seen whether newer legislations mandating greater control over online media content will be put into place by the government in the near future.
