Gag orders and the Ranveer Allahbadia case

Transcript:

Hello everyone and welcome to SCO’s Channel. Today we’re going to talk about the Ranveer Allahbadia controversy. Truth be told, we hadn’t really covered the case when it was just a meaningless poor joke that had caused public outrage. But on 18th February 2025, the Supreme Court got involved.

That’s when we began to look at the relationship that the Court has had with obscenity and free speech. Our reflection begins in 2022. “Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” the Supreme Court wrote in 2022 when refusing to bar journalist and fact checker Mohammed Zubair from tweeting while he was out on bail.

The three-judge bench’s order came in a plea by Zubair to club six FIRs filed against him, which alleged that some of his tweets had caused public nuisance and incited unlawful assembly. “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve, but also must be proportional to the purpose of imposing them,” the Order said.

The Court also said that such an order “would amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice his profession.” We revisit this Order in the wake of another request to club FIRs.

On 18th February, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a plea by Ranveer Allahbadia, a YouTuber, to club three FIRs that had been filed against him in different states. The complaints came after a clip of Allahbadia making an incest joke at a private comedy show went viral. The bench spared no words to express its disgust at Allahbadia’s comments.

Justice Surya Kant took every opportunity to remind the petitioner that his “disgusting,” “filthy” and “insulting” comments betrayed a “dirty mind” which anyone would be “ashamed” of. “Why should the Court hear this kind of person?” he asked.

When Allahbadia’s counsel, Abhinav Chandrachud told the Court that his client was receiving threats of physical violence from various people, including an MLA, Justice Kant responded that “at least no one will be ashamed” while reading those threats.

For about 20 minutes, the bench continued to comment on the vulgarity of the jokes. Chandrachud struggled to get his words in. Then suddenly, as Chandrachud attempted to bring the bench’s attention to a case law, Justices Kant and N.K. Singh huddled to speak for a few seconds. Justice Kant briskly said: “Anyway, we’ll issue notice.”

The bench went on to impose a stay on Allahbadia’s arrest and registration of fresh FIRs. But there were many strings attached. Allahbadia had to cooperate fully with the investigation. He could not be accompanied by his lawyer to the police station. He had to deposit his passport with the police.

He could not leave India without the Court’s permission, and he could not post any video or audio until further orders. There’s no doubt on the fact that the Court can use its discretion to impose reasonable conditions while granting interim relief. But in this case, the gag order takes the form of prior restraint, which is the practice of restricting speech before it has even occurred.

The pre-emptive bar on posting any audio or video restrains Allahbadia from pursuing his livelihood as a content creator and silences him in a manner that is unnecessary to ensure a smooth investigation. The bench in Zubair’s case, which included Justice Kant, in fact had come out strongly against such blanket ‘prior restraint.’

It is true that the Order was written by a different judge, that is Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Zubair is more accurately described as a journalist and not a content creator, like Allahbadia. However, the expectation from the top court remains that it speak in a unified voice with each bench following the scheme of interpretation set by its predecessor.

This is crucial to ensure the reliability, predictability, and authority of the institution. Was Allahbadia’s juvenile joke so appalling that it caused Justice Kant to overlook a progressive order he put his name to not even three years ago? Even before the Supreme Court was called on to adjudicate, this clip from a mindless comedy show had dominated the news cycle.

The alacrity with which ministers hopped on the issue only served to underline the power of the faceless mob. For us at the SCO, this story is less about a poor joke and more about what it reveals about the inconsistencies of the polyvocal court.

Tell us what you think of the Court’s Order and its effects on free speech. Thank you for tuning in. I’ll see you soon.