On February 18, the Supreme Court docket made headlines after its oral remarks concerning the YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, who was in search of authorized safety after a crass joke that he had made on his channel sparked outrage and led to police proceedings towards him in a number of states. Earlier than the Supreme Court docket, Allahbadia made a really fundamental prayer: As there have been police FIRs towards him in multiple state for making the identical joke on-line (a tactic that’s usually utilized by states to harass people by making them run from place to put when summoned by the police), he requested that these FIRs be “clubbed” collectively in order that he may defend himself in a single place slightly than be dragged from pillar to submit.
It is a very commonsense reduction that ought to have been given for the asking. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court docket as an alternative selected to lash out at Allahbadia, stating that he had a “perverted” and “soiled” thoughts and that his joke would have shamed the “moms, sisters, and youthful brothers” of society. That is unlucky, because the position of the Court docket is to dispassionately take into account the case earlier than it on the touchstone of legislation and the Structure, as an alternative of taking over the cudgels of concern on behalf of society at giant. A joke could also be crass and distasteful, however there’s a purpose why the legislation doesn’t criminalise such jokes: if it did so, many of the nation could be behind bars sooner or later or the opposite.
What’s extra unlucky, nevertheless, is that the Court docket’s sense of concern seems to have crept into the judicial order that it handed. Allahbadia was granted restricted reduction: Safety from arrest and a path that additional FIRs wouldn’t be filed towards him for a similar joke. Nevertheless, the Court docket didn’t instantly enable his request for clubbing the FIRs, which signifies that till additional orders, he should journey to the states the place the police investigation is ongoing if requested. The Court docket’s unwillingness to grant reduction units a nasty precedent for future circumstances, the place people could also be harassed by the submitting of a number of FIRs in numerous states for one thing that they are saying on the web.
Moreover, the Court docket directed Allahbadia to give up his passport and banned him from travelling overseas with out the Court docket’s permission. This seems to be each punitive and pointless. Nevertheless, what’s much more punitive was the Court docket’s last path, which was to ban Allahbadia or “his associates” from airing any present on YouTube or another audio/visible mode of communication until additional orders. This, it must be clear, is manifest judicial overreach, the place the Court docket basically acted as an advance censor, shutting down Allahbadia’s proper to free speech not as a legally mandated punishment for one thing that he had achieved, however as a pre-emptive ban for one thing that he would possibly go on to do sooner or later. There isn’t a warrant within the Structure or in legislation for such advance censorship, and as soon as once more, it units a disturbing precedent for the long run.
Lastly, the Court docket’s sense of concern revealed itself in an alarming sense of oral remarks, which didn’t discover their approach into the judicial order. The Court docket expressed a necessity for “regulating” on-line content material, and invited the Legal professional-Basic, on behalf of the State, to provide you with “rules” (the Court docket stated that it might be very glad if the State did so). Whereas “regulation” could sound like an innocuous phrase, it’s value remembering that the State’s earlier proposed authorized framework – the Broadcast Invoice – was so draconian that it was criticised throughout the board and was shelved. The Court docket’s oral remarks, nevertheless, now elevate the concern that it has given an advance imprimatur to the return of the Broadcast Invoice, in some kind or the opposite. It’s value noting that the Court docket’s position is to check speech-restricting legal guidelines on the anvil of the Structure’s elementary rights – to not egg on the State to herald such legal guidelines! Certainly, it’s ironic that the Court docket made these remarks in a case the place a YouTuber was going through harsh authorized proceedings underneath the present authorized framework – which is what drove him to come back to the Supreme Court docket within the first place! It’s, due to this fact, unclear why the Supreme Court docket, on the one hand, noticed match to grant safety to Allahbadia from coercive proceedings underneath the present legalregime (harsh sufficient as it’s), whereas on the identical time calling for additional authorized restrictions upon on-line content material.
It is very important observe that the difficulty goes past Allahbadia and his freedom of speech (vital although that’s). It considerations the liberty of speech of journalists, dissidents, satirists and humourists, and all those that use the Web to speak their factors of view. When these are the stakes, the Supreme Court docket ought to keep in mind that its major position is to guard our elementary rights underneath the Structure — and to not be swept away by a second of concern and invite a regime of censorship.
Gautam Bhatia is a New Delhi-based advocate.The views expressed are private
