‘Dirty Mind, Perverted’: SC Slams YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, Grants Protection from Arrest

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, known as Beer Biceps, on February 18. This was in relation to multiple FIRs filed in Mumbai, Guwahati, and Jaipur for obscenity due to his comments made during an episode of “India’s Got Latent.” 

A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh issued this interim order while also notifying the involved parties, including the Union of India, Maharashtra, and Assam, about the writ petition Allahabadia filed against the FIRs. The court instructed that no additional FIRs should be registered against him concerning the episode.

The interim protection given to Allahabadia comes with several conditions:

(i) He must join the investigation whenever he is summoned by the Investigating Officers

(ii) He is required to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and cannot have any legal counsel with him inside the police stations during the investigation

(iii) He must deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer at the Thane police station

(iv) He cannot leave the country without permission from the Supreme Court

(v) He and his associates are prohibited from airing any other shows until further notice.

Additionally, the bench allowed Allahabadia to seek protection from local police in Maharashtra and Assam if he faces any threats, enabling him to participate in the investigation.

Despite granting him this interim relief, Justice Kant criticized Allahabadia during the hearing, calling the language he used “dirty” and “perverted.”

Justice Kant questioned Advocate Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud about whether he was defending the language used by Allahabadia. Chandrachud admitted to being personally “disgusted” by it but argued that the real issue was whether it constituted a criminal offense. He referenced the Apoorva Arora case, which established that profanity alone does not equate to obscenity.

Justice Kant, however, appeared unconvinced by this argument. He challenged, “If this is not obscenity, then what is obscenity? Is the judgment [in Apoorva Arora case] a license to say whatever you want?”

When Chandrachud pointed out that Allahabadia was facing multiple FIRs, Justice Kant clarified that only two FIRs were registered at that time—one in Mumbai and the other in Guwahati. Chandrachud countered, stating that there was another FIR in Jaipur and that complaints were being filed nationwide. He cited the TT Antony case, arguing against multiple FIRs for the same offense. Justice Kant responded by noting that the FIRs had different ingredients and were related to different statements made by Allahabadia.

Justice Kant criticized Allahabadia’s language, stating, “The dirty language, humiliating FIR used against the persons of Arunachal Pradesh is the subject of the other FIR.” He expressed concern about the content of Allahabadia’s program, saying, “There is something very dirty in his mind, which has been vomited by him in the program…He is insulting his parents also. Why should the Courts favor him?”

Chandrachud tried to draw a comparison to the Nupur Sharma case, arguing that she received relief despite making a statement that was “much worse.” When he mentioned that his client was receiving death threats, Justice Kant remarked that the State would handle that issue. He added, “If you can try to attain cheap publicity by saying these kinds of things, there might be others also who might want to get cheap publicity by making threats.”

Justice Kant further emphasized the impact of Allahabadia’s words, stating, “The words which you have used, parents will feel ashamed. Sisters and daughters will feel ashamed. The entire society will feel ashamed. It shows a perverted mind.” This reflects the judge’s strong disapproval of the language used and its implications for societal values.

When Chandrachud mentioned that his colleague who accompanied the accused to the police station was also mobbed, Justice Kant expressed disapproval of the lawyer’s actions. He questioned, “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.”

Chandrachud then stated that even Allahabadia’s mother, who is a doctor, was receiving threats from people pretending to be patients. Justice Kant responded sharply, “What embarrassment he has caused to [his] parents!”

Chandrachud explained that the show was only accessible to paid subscribers who are adults, and the controversy started when a 10-second clip from a 45-minute episode leaked on social media. The Court then issued a notice and sought responses from the involved parties.

To recap, the remarks that raised objections came from an episode of Samay Raina’s YouTube show “India’s Got Latent,” which featured Allahabadia along with other YouTube personalities like Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh, and Apoorva Makhija.

When clips from the episode went viral, it sparked a massive backlash, leading to widespread criticism of both Allahabadia and Raina. In response, Raina issued a public apology and removed all episodes of “India’s Got Latent” from his channel. Allahabadia also apologized, acknowledging that his comments were inappropriate. It’s interesting how quickly things can escalate online, right?

Interestingly, in 2024, Allahabadia received the Disruptor of the Year award at the National Creators Award from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, highlighting his influence in the content creation space.

In a related news, YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani has approached the Gauhati High Court seeking anticipatory bail concerning the FIR filed against him by the Guwahati Police over the alleged obscene comments made during the episode of “India’s Got Latent.”