Ranveer Allahabadi’s Case Sparks Debate on Censorship, Morality, and the Limits of Free Speech
THE SUPREME COURT has allowed podcaster and influencer Ranveer Allahabadi, who has a massive following, to resume his podcasts but has nudged the government to consider a new law for regulating social media.
Ranveer came under intense criticism for one of his shows, which was neither humorous nor entertaining but smacked of perversity. Multiple FIRs were filed against him in various parts of the country, and there was widespread demand for his arrest.
He approached the highest court of the land to challenge his arrest, claiming that his life was under threat. While the court granted the clubbing of FIRs against him and stayed his arrest, it also imposed a ban on the release of more podcasts by him until further orders.
This gag order also came under criticism from media and social organizations, which argued that the court was muzzling freedom of speech—something it is supposed to safeguard.
The Supreme Court is the final frontier for ensuring the fundamental rights of citizens, and by restricting Ranveer’s right to free speech, it left him with no opportunity for appeal.
By doing so, the court contradicted its stance in the Mohammad Zubair case (2022), where it refused to bar him from tweeting, stating that “gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech.” At the same time, it had warned that “if he posts tweets in violation of the law, he would be answerable for it.”
Any specific law against obscenity would open a Pandora’s box and lead to a plethora of court cases.
Thankfully, in its hearing on Monday, the court allowed him to resume his show. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh ruled that he could continue subject to an undertaking to maintain “standards of decency and morality.”
The bench observed that “there is no absolute fundamental right on a platter in the country, and all rights come with a corresponding duty.” It further stated, “Humour is one thing, vulgarity is another, and perversity is on a different level,” expressing hope that Ranveer Allahabadi may have repentance for his actions.
Indeed, it is difficult to defend what Ranveer Allahabadi said on his show—it was a direct and crude attack on family values. As an influencer with lakhs of followers, primarily young people with impressionable minds, he should have been more cautious and acted responsibly.
There are enough provisions in the law to deal with obscenity and other criminal violations, and he must face the charges, even though he has expressed regret over his remarks.
Freedom of speech was already fettered with “reasonable restrictions” by the framers of the Constitution.
What is a matter of serious concern, however, is the Supreme Court’s suggestion for a new law to check obscenity on social media. While the court clarified that it “did not want a regulatory regime that leads to censorship,” it also stated, “No stakeholder should advocate that, but to say it is free for all and anybody can say anything would also be dangerous.”
However, the court’s prescription for a new law carries dangerous portents. Obscenity is subjective, making it difficult to define. Any specific law against obscenity would open a Pandora’s box and lead to a plethora of court cases.
With the current government not shying away from using state agencies as weapons against political opponents, such a law would provide yet another tool to target its critics.
Freedom of speech was already fettered with “reasonable restrictions” by the framers of the Constitution. No additional curbs are needed, especially on the vague pretext of regulating “obscenity.”
After all, in a society where some people view girls wearing short skirts, torn jeans, or being in live-in relationships as obscene, defining obscenity objectively is nearly impossible. Existing laws already provide sufficient provisions to deal with violations. 
Also Read:
Forgotten Lives: Women in the Flesh Trade
Vipin Pubby
The author, a freelance journalist, is a former Resident Editor of Indian Express, Chandigarh, and reported on the political developments in Jammu and Kashmir, North-Eastern India, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab in his long, illustrious career.
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT