The Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the governments of Maharashtra and Assam, requesting their responses to a petition filed by popular YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, Ashish Chanchlani. Chanchlani seeks to quash or transfer an FIR registered against him in Guwahati, Assam, alleging the promotion of obscenity during an online show.
Table of Contents
Background of the FIR Ranveer Allahbadia
The FIR in question stems from Chanchlaniβs participation in the YouTube show βIndiaβs Got Latent,β hosted by comedian Samay Raina. The show featured discussions that some viewers found to be sexually explicit and vulgar, leading to public outrage and multiple police complaints. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma confirmed the registration of the FIR against Chanchlani and others for βpromoting obscenity and engaging in sexually explicit and vulgar discussion.β
Consolidation with Allahbadiaβs Case
Chanchlaniβs petition has been combine with a similar case involving fellow YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, also known as BeerBiceps. Allahbadia faced multiple FIRs in Maharashtra and Assam for remarks made during his appearance on βIndiaβs Got Latent.β He approached the Supreme Court seeking protection from arrest and the consolidation of all complaints against him. The Court granted him interim protection and directed him to halt all shows until further notice.
Supreme Courtβs Directive on Ranveer Allahbadia
In response to Chanchlaniβs plea, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh has sought detailed responses from the Maharashtra and Assam governments. The Court aims to address the concerns raised by digital content creators regarding multiple FIRs filed across different jurisdictions for the same alleged offense. This move is look as an effort to prevent the harassment of individuals through numerous legal proceedings for identical content.
Implications for Digital Content Creators like Ranveer Allahbadia
These cases have ignited a broader debate on the regulation of online content and the boundaries of creative expression in India. While there is no official censorship of online platforms in the country. Also societal conservatism often leads to complaints against content perceived as indecent. The outcomes of these legal proceedings could set significant precedents for how digital content is govern. Its potentially influencing future legislation and the operational freedom of content creators.
As the situation develops, the responses from the state governments and subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court. It will be closely monitor by stakeholders in the digital content industry, legal experts, and advocates of free speech.
