Pervert mind, no shows till order: Supreme Court on Ranveer Allahbadia as it grants interim relief

Hearing another matter a little later, the bench referred to the Allahbadia case and asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati whether the government intended to do something about obscenity in social media content. The court said it would like to hear from the government on this, and sought the presence of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General at the next hearing.

“There was this case of YouTubers…Union of India is a party…we would like to do something. If Government of India will willingly do it, we will be very happy. Otherwise, we are not going to leave this vacuum…the way it is being misused by so-called YouTube channels and all these things are going on…We have issued notice. So please request the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to be here on the next date of hearing. We would like to do something. We may not overlook the importance and sensitivity of the issue,” Justice Kant told the ASG.

Earlier, while hearing Allahbadia’s plea to club the FIRs against him, the court stayed his arrest, but asked him to desist from airing shows till further orders and to surrender his passport. “The petitioner or his associates shall not air any show on YouTube or any other audio/video… mode of communication till further orders,” it said.

“Issue notice… Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner in FIR… registered at police station Thane in Maharashtra and in FIR… at cyber police station, Gauhati, Assam, shall remain stayed, subject to the condition that the petitioner joins investigation as and when summoned by the investigating officers,” it said.

Besides the FIRs in Maharashtra and Assam, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, who represented Allahbadia, said a third FIR was registered on Sunday and there were complaints across the country. The court directed that arrest in the third FIR, too, shall remain stayed.

The court also ordered that no new FIR shall be registered against Allahbadia on the basis of the show and he shall be at liberty to approach the local police in Maharashtra and Assam for protection of life and liberty in the event of any threat.

At the outset, Justice Kant asked Chandrachud if he was defending the language used by Allahbadia on the show ‘India’s Got Latent’.

“Not at all. As an officer of the court, I am personally disgusted by what the petitioner has said. But whether it rises to the level of a criminal offence is the larger question,” Chandrachud responded.

“What is that level which, according to you, should invite criminal prosecution,” Justice Kant asked.

Chandrachud said the court had earlier laid down “what amounts to obscenity, (and) anything that gives rise to disgust or revulsion in the listener would not amount to obscenity”. “Mere use of profanity for example would not amount to obscenity. If something excites, in the words of the court, lustful thoughts or sexual thoughts in the mind of a reasonable person, that would be obscenity.” he said.

Justice Kant then said: “It is not a question of arousing lustful thoughts. The question is, ultimately what are the parameters of obscenity? What are the parameters of vulgarity? What are those parameters, we would like to know from the petitioner and the so-called fellow artists… According to them, what are the parameters of Indian society? … On the one hand, you are defending that it is not obscenity, So we would like to know, in this country, if this is not obscenity, what is that standard of obscenity?”

Terming Allahbadia’s conduct as “condemnable”, Justice Kant said: “Somebody thinks that because I have now become popular, I can speak any kind of words and I can take the entire society for granted?”

When Chandrachud said that he “can’t defend the morality”, Justice Kant said: “It is not a question of any individual’s morality. We would have understood if one person had said that I don’t like these kinds of words. You tell us, anyone on earth would like these kinds of words? You are insulting people’s parents also. There is something that is dirty in his mind that has been vomited by way of this programme. Why should courts entertain this kind of person?”

As Chandrachud pointed to abusive words allegedly used against Allahbadia, the Judge said: “If you can seek cheap publicity by using all kinds of abusive language, this person extending threat is also seeking publicity.”

At one point, the counsel said a co-accused woman was heckled when she went to a police station in Mumbai, accompanied by his lawyer colleague. The bench then asked: “What was the business for him to go there?…Under which law?…He is shaming his dress….Is this the purpose of the Bar Council licence?”

As Chandrachud referred to an alleged threat by a former wrestler, Justice Kant said, “wrestlers are the most innocent class of players.”

The counsel also referred to threats to Allahbadia’s mother’s clinic. “He should be ashamed, what respect he has cost to his parents,” Justice Kant said.

The bench said there are countries which have shows with adult content, but these come with a warning. Chandrachud said the show in which Allahbadia appeared was not free, and only adults with a credit card could pay for the subscription. “It is not something open to the general audience,” he said.

Justice Kant sought to disagree. “It was open and the only question was of payment. There was absolutely no embargo except making payment. That, of course, you are doing for commercial reasons,” he said.