On February 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed a writ petition filed by YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia (known as Beer Biceps) concerning multiple FIRs lodged against him across states like Maharashtra, Assam, and Rajasthan. These FIRs stemmed from allegedly obscene remarks he made during an episode of the YouTube show “India’s Got Latent.” The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, provided interim relief while sharply criticizing Allahabadia’s conduct. Below is a detailed update based on available information, including the judges’ statements and the arguments presented by counsel.
The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of Allahabadia’s remarks, emphasizing their offensive and socially harmful nature. Key statements from the bench included:
Justice Kant said: “The words which you have used, parents will feel shamed. Sisters and daughters will feel ashamed. Entire society will feel shamed. It shows a perverted mind.” This reflected the court’s view that the content was not just inappropriate but deeply disrespectful to societal values.
“If this is not obscenity, then what is obscenity?” Justice Kant questioned, challenging the defense’s stance and suggesting that Allahabadia’s statements clearly crossed legal and moral boundaries.
“The pervert mind; there is something dirty in his mind which has been vomited on YouTube show,” Justice Kant remarked, portraying Allahabadia’s actions as a deliberate display of objectionable thought rather than a mere lapse in judgment.
“Society has some values. What are these parameters, do you even know?” the bench asked, underscoring that public figures like Allahabadia must adhere to a standard of decency, especially on widely accessible platforms like YouTube.
“Why should we quash or club FIRs against you?” Justice Kant probed, indicating skepticism about granting leniency given the severity of the remarks.
The court also hinted at regulatory concerns, with Justice Kant stating to the Additional Solicitor General, “We would like you (government) to do something, if the government is willing to do something, we are happy. Otherwise, we are not going to leave this vacuum and barren area the way it is being misused by so-called YouTube channels and YouTubers.”
Despite their harsh critique, the bench granted interim protection from arrest, subject to conditions: Allahabadia must cooperate fully with the investigation, deposit his passport with the Thane Police Station, and refrain from leaving the country without court permission. The court also barred further FIRs related to the same episode and prohibited Allahabadia and his associates from airing new shows until further orders.
Allahabadia was represented by Advocate Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, son of former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who sought to consolidate the multiple FIRs and secure interim protection.
Chandrachud conceded personal discomfort with Allahabadia’s language, stating, “I personally am disgusted,” but argued that the critical question was “whether it rises to the level of criminal offense.” He suggested that while the remarks were distasteful, they might not legally constitute obscenity. Chandrachud cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Apoorva Arora case, which held that profanity alone does not equate to obscenity under Indian law. He posited that Allahabadia’s comments, though offensive, might not meet the threshold for criminal liability.
He highlighted the filing of FIRs in Mumbai, Guwahati, and Jaipur (with potential additional complaints elsewhere), arguing that this multiplicity constituted an “abuse of process.” He referenced the Arnab Goswami case, where multiple FIRs were consolidated, to support his plea for clubbing the FIRs. Chandrachud noted that Allahabadia and his family, including his mother, were receiving death threats, and a colleague faced mobbing at a police station. He sought court intervention to ensure protection, emphasizing the real-world consequences of the controversy . When Justice Kant asked, “Are you defending the kind of language?” Chandrachud clarified that he was not endorsing the remarks but questioning their criminality. However, the bench remained unconvinced, with Justice Kant retorting, “Is the judgment [in Apoorva Arora] a license to say whatever you want?”
The court also expressed displeasure with a lawyer visiting a police station on Allahabadia’s behalf, with Justice Kant remarking, “Why did the lawyer go? Under which law? Just because you can pay and lawyers will start rendering these services? This is insulting the [lawyers’] dress also.”
The Supreme Court balanced its strong condemnation with pragmatic relief. Allahabadia was shielded from arrest, contingent on his cooperation with the ongoing investigations in Maharashtra and Assam.
He was ordered to surrender his passport and barred from producing further content, signaling a temporary halt to his public activities. The court sought assistance from the Attorney General and Solicitor General, indicating a potential broader review of online content regulation.
This ruling reflects a judicial attempt to address both the immediate legal issue and the larger societal implications of unchecked digital content, while the investigation into the FIRs continues. The next hearing date remains unspecified in available sources, pending further orders.