The recent controversy of India’s Got Latent, a dark humour comedy show on YouTube run by popular Indian stand-up comic, Samay Raina, has got the entire country discussing comedy, the ethics and boundaries of it, and which side of the comedy debate they are on. Here is a quick recap for the benefit of the reader: In February, 2025, YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia made a controversial comment on India’s Got Latent - a comment that was offensive to many. Almost immediately, FIRs were registered against Allahbadia and Raina, in different parts of the country. Both comedians instantly went underground, after issuing public apologies, hoping for the matter to die down, which it did not. Instead, the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, got highly involved in this case, making scathing remarks against the comedians and imposing strict restrictions on them, begging the question - does the Supreme Court need to play the role of moral police for the country? If yes, how does it select where to step in and in which cases to assert its morality?

In Allahbadia’s case, due to the multiplicity of FIRs filed across the country, Allahbadia moved the Supreme Court for a consolidation of the FIR. While granting him protection against further FIRs being filed in the case, the Supreme Court passed scathing remarks against Allahabdia’s comments on the show, calling them ‘disgusting’, ‘filthy’, and ‘insulting.’ The court also went on to remark that simply because these individuals have attained popularity over the internet, does not give them the license to be vulgar.¹ Allahabadia was prohibited from posting any further content on his social media channels, and was required to deposit his passport, preventing him from travelling abroad. A major justification used by the court for its remarks and the restrictions imposed on Allahabdia was women’s safety and security. To quote the court, “Words you have used will make daughters, sisters, parents and even society feel ashamed.”² In a subsequent order, the Supreme Court, while permitting Allahabdia to restart posting on his online channels, refused to lift the travel ban on him, citing ongoing investigation into the case and remarks.

The entire country has been closely following the Allahbadia and India’s Got Latent saga, but as a member of the legal profession, the Supreme Court’s peculiar approach in this particular case needs careful analysis. First, the Allahbadia matter was taken up as an urgent mention in the court of the Chief Justice of India, in the first instance. As of December 2024, the Supreme Court clocked eighty-three thousand pending cases.³ Further, in July 2024, the Supreme Court had issued new guidelines that fresh cases will be listed automatically each week and that lawyers need not ‘mention’ them in the court for urgent hearing.⁴ Despite the guidelines and the volume of cases, Allahbadia’s case was not only ‘mentioned’ before the court as urgent, but the Supreme Court also allotted the case enough court time to not only pass orders but also comments on the morality and vulgarity of Allahabadia’s joke gone wrong. Second, the court expressed its concern about how the daughters and sisters of India would feel post Allahbadia’s remarks. Did the Supreme Court pause to consider that perhaps it is not a comedian’s bad jokes, but the rate of crime against women in India that makes the daughters and sisters of the country feel unsafe and uncomfortable? In the same month as the Supreme’s Court orders on the Allahbadia case, the Bombay High Court reduced the life sentence of the child rapist, of a fourteen-month old baby girl, convicted under the POCSO Act, to ten years, stating that the punishment was too harsh.⁵ Third, the comments made by Allahabdia were meant for a specific audience who had access to the show through a paywall, which meant that the show was meant for adults with a certain acceptance towards dark humour. Allahabdia’s comments may have been obscene and offensive to many, but did they constitute a crime which would override Allahabdia’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution? Further, assuming that the said comments violated the exceptions of ‘decency and morality’ as set out in Article 19(2), did they justify restricting Allabadia’s freedom to practice his profession under Article 19(1)(g)? The Supreme Court imposed an almost month-long embargo on Allahabdia posting or appearing on any online platform, which serves as his major source of income, thereby completely restricting his freedom of trade and profession.

It is quite clear that the Supreme Court, or at least the bench hearing the matter, was indeed offended by Ranveer Allahabadia’s comments. However, disagreement over questionable ‘humour’ neither warrants an urgent hearing before the apex court of the country, nor does it justify spending precious court time and resources to sermonise on its morality. If the Supreme Court does indeed consider itself as a guardian of not only the rule of law but an invisible moral code, then the court’s morality needs to be standardised and codified. It simply cannot change basis the personal morality of the judges.

By - Manasi Chaudhari