Supreme Court youtuber protects Ranveer Allahbadia from arrest

On February 18, 2025, the Supreme Court saved YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia from arrests for his controversial remarks about parents and sex during the ‘Bharat Got Latent’ show, but made him frightening for his “dirty language”. , Video Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Tuesday saved YouTuber Ranveer Allabia from arrests for his controversial comments about parents and sex during the show, but he horrified for his “dirty language”, remar In some very dirty “thrown away. Program.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh ordered that no new criminal case should be registered against Mr. Allabia based on their comment. He will be in freedom to contact local police in Thane, Maharashtra for personal protection in case of any danger.

The court, however, stopped YouTuber from participating in the show. Justice Kant told his lawyer, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, “Stop the show’s business.”

Shri Allahabadia was directed to submit his passport at Thane police station. The court warned that migration against his arrest would be subject to their future support and participation in investigation.

YouTuber contacted the Supreme Court for protection from arrest. He challenged several first information report (FIR) as an attempt to harass and rob his personal freedom.

Despite the grant of interim relief at the end of the half -hour hearing, the court clearly took a moral approach to Shri Allahbadia’s comments. Justice Kant said that Utubar was swept away by his popularity, he thought he could resort to “all kinds of obscenity” and “ever, sometimes, displays a deprived mind”. Justice Kant slammed the “deformity” of the language used by Utubar, saying that it would “embarrass parents, brothers, sisters and the whole society”.

“What are the parameters of obscenity and vulgarity? There are self-developed parameters in the society which should follow responsible citizens. They should conduct themselves within these parameters of Indian society. What are you [Allahbadia’s] Honor and parameter? Justice Kant addressed YouTuber’s lawyer.

Mr. Chandrachud said that he was personally hate with his customer’s remarks. “I can’t defend the morality of his comments,” he presented.

But he asked the court whether the comments could be elevated to the level of criminal offense.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Apoorva Arora case, Mr. Chandrachud said that there was no amount of vulgarity from using impurity or some disgusting or rebellion.

“A proper person’s mind will have exciting lust or sexual views for obscenity,” said Mr. Chandrachud, referring to the court’s conclusion in the Arora case.

The lawyer said that the FIR was registered by the police in Thane and Gauhati in Assam. A third FIR was reported to be filed in Rajasthan in Jaipur, and there was even more possibility that there would be more possibility across the country. The current FIR accused Shri Allahbadia of unrelated crimes, including spreading enmity between the two groups and injuring religious beliefs.

Mr. Chandrachud said that his client is facing threats of death and acid attacks. A special menting message was issued on social media by Sourav Gurjar, a former WWE wrestler against Shri Allahbadia. A co-accused was provoked on the way to the police station. Traveling to other states will be exposed to its customer at greater danger. The lawyer said that people had entered the clinic of a doctor, a doctor’s mother, and issued a threat.

Also read Police say

The lawyer argued that the registration of several FIRs was misused by the process of law. Mr. Chandrachud mentioned the decision of the apex court in the TT Anthony case, followed by Arnab Goswami and Amish Devgan decisions, which was held against the plurality in litigation. “The first cedar was the only real cedar,” argued by Shri Chandrachud.

Justice Kant said that the court usually intervened only when many FIRs, which were scattered in states, would deprive one of the accused of defending themselves. The judge said that relief could not be given only because an influential accused wanted everything to be within easy access.

Justice Kant said, “The law should take its curriculum.”