The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani’s plea to consolidate multiple FIRs registered against him over alleged obscene remarks on the YouTube show India’s Got Latent. The case stems from a larger controversy involving podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, the primary accused, whose statements on the show have sparked widespread outrage.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh issued notices to Assam and Maharashtra authorities, seeking their responses. Chanchlani’s legal team argued that the Guwahati FIR was filed later than the one in Mumbai and should either be quashed or transferred to Mumbai for a consolidated investigation.
Legal Battle and Interim Relief
On February 10, the Guwahati Police registered the FIR citing violations under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, IT Act, Cinematograph Act, and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. However, on Tuesday, the Gauhati High Court granted interim bail to Chanchlani, directing him to appear before investigators within 10 days. His defense maintains that he did not make any objectionable statements and is being implicated solely due to his presence on the show.
SC Criticism and Calls for Regulation
The controversy escalated when the Supreme Court granted interim protection to Allahbadia on February 18, but not without sharp criticism. The court labeled his remarks as “perverted,” “disgusting,” and “a complete nuisance.”
“What he said on that show—his parents, his sister, his entire society should be ashamed. There’s something very dirty in his mind which he vomited during that show,” the bench remarked, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations on digital content.
Restrictions and Free Speech Debate
While shielding Allahbadia from arrest, the court imposed strict conditions, barring him from:
Broadcasting any new content until further orders
Leaving India without prior permission
Facing further FIRs linked to the show
Additionally, the National Commission for Women (NCW) summoned Allahbadia and the show’s producers for an explanation. Under mounting pressure, he issued a public apology, calling his remarks a “lapse in judgment.”