The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia for his vulgar remarks, saying he was "depraved" and "perverted" as no person on earth would make such statements.
The court, however, stayed the two FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Assam and directed that no fresh FIR should be lodged against him over his comments on the show India's Got Latent, subject to the condition that he would cooperate with the investigation.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh also directed that Allahbadia shall not be accompanied by his lawyers to the police station during questioning and ruled that neither he nor his "associates" would be allowed to "air any show on YouTube or any other audio/video visual mode of communication till further orders". The bench also asked him to deposit his passport.
When the matter came up for hearing, Justice Kant, heading the bench, asked advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, appearing for Allahbadia, whether he as a counsel was defending the kind of statements made by the YouTuber.
Abhinav, son of former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, responded: "Not at all. I am personally disgusted. But whether it rises to the level of criminal offence is another question."
Justice Kant asked: "What are the parameters of obscenity and vulgarity? If this is not obscenity in this country, then what is it? See the language you are using. You have got a licence to speak all kinds of things you want?
"This type of condemnable behaviour is not a question of an individual's morality. He is insulting parents also. There is something dirty in this person's mind that has been spread through this programme. Why should the courts favour him? This is something of a depraved mind, someone perverted," the bench orally observed.
It added: "Somebody thinks that because I have become so popular, I can speak any kind of words and take the entire society for granted. You tell us, is there anyone in the world, on this earth, who would like such words?"
When Abhinav submitted that there cannot be parallel FIRs on the same set of facts, the bench said the FIRs in Maharashtra and Assam health with different statements made by the YouTuber. The FIR in Assam was based on the "dirty and humiliating" language used against people of northeastern states like Arunachal Pradesh and Assam.
Abhinav said one of the co-accused in the case had been threatened with an acid attack and claimed that remarks made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma were worse. He was referring to an earlier controversy in which the BJP leader had commented against Islam, triggering widespread condemnation and death threats to her.
"We are sorry to say that the words which you (Allahbadia) have used, parents will feel ashamed, sisters and daughters will feel ashamed. The entire society will feel shamed," Justice Kant said.
The counsel then referred to a threat issued by one of the critics who had offered a ₹5-lakh reward to anyone chopping off Allahbadia's tongue, prompting the bench to say: "If you can seek cheap publicity by using abusive language, the person extending the threat is also seeking publicity.
"The perverted mind, the perversion you and your henchmen have exhibited. We have a judicial system, bound by the rule of law. If there are threats, the law will take its course. It's not the people's court. People can't hold someone guilty. We are not supporting (the threats)."
Justice Singh said the court was sure the State would provide the necessary protection to Allahbadia but he must cooperate with the police.
Abhinav also argued that it was meant to be an adult show but some people made copies of the video and made it public.