Ranveer Allahbadia bail condition: SC’s gag order and the question of free speech

The SC also sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India in the next hearing to tackle the “vacuum” in the regulation of online content.

While Allahbadia was granted relief, the gag order raises some questions of free speech. The order also flies in the face of an SC judgment that said such a condition could have a “chilling effect on the freedom of speech”.

Petitioner’s plea

The petitioner had moved the SC seeking clubbing of FIRs against him, and an interim order preventing his arrest.

Essentially, the relief would be akin to granting anticipatory bail. Such pleas are routinely entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights as a safeguard against arbitrary police action.

The pattern of filing multiple FIRs in different jurisdictions for the same cause of action or alleged offence has been noted in several cases as restricting liberty.

Courts club the FIRs or allow investigation in one FIR, while the others are stayed so the petitioner does not have to appear in multiple courts. Ultimately, even if convicted, the accused would serve a common sentence, and not consecutive sentences.

SC’s gag order on Ranveer Allahbadia 

The court stayed the FIRs registered in Jaipur and Guwahati, and also any future FIRs on the same set of allegations. It allowed Allahbadia to approach the police for protection in the event of any threat.

But the SC imposed two conditions: that Allahbadia deposit his passport so he does not leave the country, and that he “or his associates shall not air any show on Youtube or any other audio/video visual mode of communication till further orders”.

Bail conditions

Section 438(2) of the CrPC stipulates that the High Court or the Court of Sessions can direct a person to be released on conditional bail. The court shall impose conditions in the context of the facts of a particular case.

For example, the condition of depositing a passport is to address situations where the accused could be a flight risk. Bail could be set for a high monetary value to ensure the accused joins the investigation. Another common condition is that the accused should periodically present himself before a police officer.

In other cases, courts have imposed onerous bail conditions like sharing a Google map PIN or residing in a particular locality. In a 2023 case in which the accused was asked to deposit a huge amount with the court for grant of bail, the SC had observed that setting such onerous bail conditions amounted to “selling bail”.

“How many times have you stood in the Supreme Court and High Court objecting to such onerous conditions? How can we start selling bail like this?” a Bench headed by Justice Ravindra Bhat had said.

However, a gag order, while granting protection from arrest, is an unusual condition because it is in the nature of a prior restraint — when speech or any other expression is prohibited before it can take place.

A body of jurisprudence in India bars the state from making prior restraint laws. In hate speech cases, the court could observe that the accused cannot make similar statements, essentially tailoring the gag order narrowly to not interfere with speech entirely.

Past SC ruling

In 2022, while granting bail to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea that the accused must be barred from tweeting while on bail.

“Merely because the complaints… arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion — an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold… — would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” the court said.

The court noted that Zubair would need to use social media as a medium of communication for his work, and said that a gag order would “amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession”.