The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down hard on YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, also known as BeerBiceps, for his controversial remarks on comedian Samay Raina’s show, calling his statements “dirty and perverted.” The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, berated Allahbadia, stating, “There is something dirty in his mind that has been vomited on the YouTube show.”
Multiple FIRs have been filed against Allahbadia for his alleged obscene comments about parents and sex on Raina’s YouTube show, India’s Got Latent. The court expressed strong disapproval, stating, “The words you have used will make daughters, sisters, parents, and even society feel ashamed. If this is not obscenity, then what is?”
While slamming Allahbadia, the court questioned senior advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the influencer, asking if he was defending such language. Chandrachud conceded that he himself was “disgusted” by the remarks but argued that profanity does not automatically qualify as obscenity. He further requested protection from arrest, citing multiple FIRs and death threats against his client.
The court agreed to shield Allahbadia from immediate arrest but imposed strict conditions, including directing him to surrender his passport at Thane police station and seek court permission before leaving India. Additionally, the bench restrained Allahbadia and his co-panellists from airing further episodes of the controversial YouTube show.
The Maharashtra Cyber Department has also taken action, filing a case under the IT Act and demanding that all 18 episodes of the show be removed. Meanwhile, FIRs have been lodged in Mumbai, Guwahati, and Indore, with an Assam police team travelling to Pune to issue summons to Raina. Alongside Allahbadia and Raina, other influencers named in the Assam case include Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh, and Apoorva Makhija.
The Supreme Court directed Maharashtra and Assam governments, as well as the Centre, to respond to Allahbadia’s plea seeking quashing and clubbing of multiple FIRs. The bench also reminded the YouTuber that “freedom of speech does not grant a license to speak against societal norms.”
With a growing crackdown on online content, this case has reignited debates over free speech, content regulation, and the responsibilities of social media influencers.
