Civil society is raising an alarm over a recent Supreme Court directive imposing a gag order on podcaster Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia, fearing it marks a troubling step towards judicial
moral policing and an expanded censorship regime in India. A report by Mudit Mathur
Civil society is deeply concerned over a recent interim order from a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, which, it feels, in the name of morality, imposed a gag order on the petitioner, restricting his right to free speech and expression on social media. India is already witnessing an erosion of free speech, and civil society fears that judicial moral policing, coupled with the potential for a broader censorship regime, could deepen the crisis.
The contentious order came when a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, stayed the arrest of Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia on the condition that he cooperate with the police and appear when summoned. The court also prohibited any further FIRs based on the same show but refrained from deciding whether to club them. Most concerning, however, is the imposition of a sweeping restriction, barring ‘Allahabadia’ and his associates from airing any shows on YouTube or other platforms “until further orders.”
Many argue that such restrictions violate their freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and their fundamental right to practice any profession or occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In a similar case in 2022, a three-judge bench, led by then CJI and including Justice Suryakant and Justice A.S. Bopanna ruled that prohibiting Zubair from tweeting would amount to an unconstitutional gag order.
“A blanket order directing the petitioner not to express his opinion—an opinion he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active, participating citizen—would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would amount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech… Passing an order restricting him from posting on social media would constitute an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession,” the three-judge bench had then held, which also comprised Justice Surya Kant.
The contentious interim order, passed in contradiction to settled Supreme Court law, has drawn criticism from civil society, particularly academia and the legal fraternity. While few endorse Allahabadia’s comments on his social media show India Got Latent, many have expressed concern over the judicial overreach of the bench, whose order has had a far more chilling effect on free speech—a right recognised as the mother of all civil liberties.
Judicial outbursts often provide the government with an opportunity to scrutinise existing legal provisions, particularly regarding new media services driven by the internet, such as OTT platforms and YouTube, which currently lack a dedicated regulatory framework. This has triggered renewed demands for amending laws. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry is reviewing existing statutory provisions and assessing the need for a new legal framework to regulate “harmful” content amid complaints of “obscenity and violence” on digital platforms.
Senior Advocate Saurabh Kripal of the Delhi High Court, in an article for a prominent newspaper, asserted, “When the Court becomes a party to restricting, rather than protecting free speech, the citizens of the country ought to be afraid indeed.” He further cautioned, “Taking sanction under the Court’s observations, the executive is likely to further restrict the rights of citizens. And this time, they will have nowhere to turn to because it is the Court itself that has initiated the act of restricting the most fundamental of all freedoms.”
