New Delhi:
A balance between morality and freedom of speech is needed, the Supreme Court observed today, requesting the Centre to bear this in mind while formulating guidelines for online content following the huge controversy over YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s vulgar comments.
The 31-year-old YouTuber, who had been earlier held back from shooting any show, has now been permitted to conduct his podcast, The Ranveer Show. The court stated, however, that he needs to give a guarantee that his shows will adhere to wanted levels of morality so that any group of viewers will be able to watch them.
Ranveer Allahbadia, who is widely referred to as The BeerBiceps Guy, caused a massive commotion in the last month after he made an obscene comment on roast show, India’s Got Latent. While appearing on the show presented by comedian Samay Raina, Allahbadia questioned a contestant, “Would you rather see your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once and end it for good?”
mid the row, Allahbadia apologized for his remarks and stated “comedy is not my forte” and that “it wasn’t cool”. The 31-year-old uploaded an apology post on X with the caption, “I shouldn’t have said what I said on India’s got latent. I’m sorry.” In the video message, he stated, “My comment wasn’t just inappropriate, it was not even funny. Comedy is not my forte, I am just here to say sorry.”
Mr Allahbadia indicated that he had been inundated with inquiries requesting whether he was going to utilize his platform in such a manner. “Of course this is not the way I would want to use it. I am not going to provide any background or reason or explanation of what occurred. I am simply here for an apology. Personally, I had a moment of bad judgment. It wasn’t appropriate on my part,” he said.
Allahbadia’s advice Abhinav Chandrachud requested the Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh bench to remove the ban on his show since it has around 280 staff.
Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta replied that Allahbadia’s words were “not vulgar, but perverse”. “I also watched the show out of curiosity. Humour is one thing, vulgarity is one thing, and perversity is another level. Leave aside man and woman. me and AG cannot watch it together. The judges also cannot watch it together. Let him remain silent for some time,” he remarked.
Justice Surya Kant added that there were individuals who were publishing articles on free speech. “Each basic right is accompanied by responsibility. There are limitations too,” he added.
When the Solicitor General added that guidelines must be set, Justice Kant stated, “We don’t desire any regulatory system which is all about censorship, but it cannot be a free-for-all platform either.”
The highest court ruled that profanity is not talent. “There is someone who is now 75 years old and does a humour show. You must see how it is done. The whole family can watch it. That is what talent is. Using filthy language is not talent,” said Justice Kant.
The court added that something must be set down and everybody involved must work in the process. “Let us see what the society is able to swallow and what can be fed. Let us call the people, bar and other stakeholders to see what needs to be done,” it said.
The court emphasized that the Constitution provides for imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and morality. “This is the afterthought of the constitution makers. It is such a wonderfully drafted document and we need to respect the whim of the makers which represents the will of the entire Indian citizenry,” it said.
The court stated that it has directed the Solicitor General to recommend the measures that would not infringe the basic right of free speech and expression but will also be adequate to prevent it from stepping outside the circle of morality. The draft measures shall be made public and recommendations are to be made by taking into account suggestions of all concerned parties prior to initiating any legislative measure, it ruled.
