By Shweta Jena
The Supreme Court on Monday granted a permit to Ranveer Allahbadia’s show, The Ranveer Show, to resume only if he maintains certain standards of decency with his content. Before Ranveer filed an application in SC to lift one portion of the order which abstained him from continuing the show. He put forward the request saying he has 280 people working under him and that the podcast is his only form of livelihood.
“There are limitations, fundamental rights are not unrestricted,” the Court observed. “Petitioners are currently prohibited from broadcasting the program. He can only recommence the Ranveer Show, provided that he provides an undertaking that his podcast episode will uphold the desired standards of morality and civility so that the consumers of all ages can watch,” a bench of Justices N.K. Singh and Surya Kant said.
On February 18, the Court issued the notice and gave Allahbadia protection from arrest after hearing his appeal to consolidate all FIRs filed against him for his controversial remarks made on the YouTube show ‘India’s Got Latent.’ Until additional directives are given he and his associates are prohibited from airing any shows on YouTube or any other audiovisual communication platform.
Speaking on behalf of Ranveer, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, stated that his livelihood would be impacted by the performance suspension. He further stated that the Court could order him to refrain from using any more foul language. The lawyer went on to say that Allahbadia employs 280 people under him, which is how he makes a living. Chandrachud adds, “I know he (Ranveer) doesn’t have a sense of humor, but he interviews politicians, athletes, and religious leaders. If this scenario persists, he will eventually be unable to pay for his legal counsel.” Upon hearing the request the bench accepted and modified the conditions.
The SC pointed out that regulations could be necessary to stop shows that don’t adhere to the moral values of our society from being aired. It requested the Center consider and recommend some actions that would not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression while also being sufficiently effective to guarantee that it complies with 19 (4).