Author: Aishani Bhattacharjee, Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College, Bengaluru
To the Point
The topic related to free speech and vulgarity, has been making rounds recently in this day and age of digital media for varied reasons. Recently in February 2025, the controversy surrounding podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia aka BeerBiceps, created a huge lot of frenzy in many media outlets and social media due to his infamous comment on the YouTube show “India’s Got Latent”. The comment that he passed seemingly in a light hearted manner was deemed to be extremely inappropriate and caused hysteria around the adverse effect of social media influencing Indian social and moral ethics and codes of conduct. This comment in turn enraged a huge majority of people from politicians to the general public leading to serious public outcry and multiple police complaints across various states against the participants in the show. This article will delve deeper into the facets relating free speech and vulgarity surrounding the BeerBiceps case and the subsequent events relating to the same.
Use Of Legal Jargon
Many intricate legalities were involved in BeerBiceps (2025) case one was interim protection from arrest in this present scenario the Supreme Court granted Ranveer Allahabadia interim protection from arrest, allowing him to continue his podcast under specific guidelines relating to public decency. Several FIRs were filed in states like Assam and Maharashtra, following his controversial remarks. The remark led to the obscenity charges against the youtuber. The National Commission for Women (NCW) a statutory body in India responsible for advising the government on policies and programs affecting women. Following the incident, the NCW summoned BeerBiceps and others for questioning the gender sensitivity of the remarks made. Allahabadia’s remarks are also perceived as reflecting moral turpitude, contributing to public outrage and legal scrutiny. Even under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian constitution guarantees fundamental right to individuals to express themselves freely but within reasonable limits and need not infringe upon public order, morality and decency as per Article 19 (2). And also, under section 354 A IPC speeches made with the intent to objectify or sexually exploit women falls under this section. Under the spectrum of moral turpitude speeches or actions deemed vulgar or immoral may be subject to scrutiny under the lens of moral turpitude, which can lead to legal consequences. In the present context the remarks made by the participants of the show “India’s Got Latent” sparked controversy as it crossed some of the permissible limits of different legal provisions and statutory compliances.
The Proof
Proof relating to freedom of speech and vulgarity mainly involves a balance between the right to express oneself freely and the need to protect individuals and society from harm, including offensive language. Internationally as well the 1st Amendment in the U.S. constitution protects freedom of speech in the USA is not an absolute right. Many judgements by the courts in the country have limited speeches which are deemed to incite violence, defame others or which are considered obscene. The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that freedom of speech does not protect speech that is harmful, including hate speech and vulgarity, if it infringes on the rights of others or public order even though the Human Rights Convention guarantees freedom of speech. India as well many legal provisions especially Article 19 (2) and Article where freedom of speech is restricted under few grounds like state security, public order, Decency or morality etc. Indian courts have persistently put emphasis on the importance of public morality in cases involving vulgarity. In the case of BeerBiceps, 2025 the podcaster and fitness influencer asking question related to personal information relating to one’s parents did raise a lot of questions relating to present generation youtubers, comedians or podcasters doing or saying certain words or actions which goes against public morality, decency and the misuse of free speech as guaranteed under the constitution.
Abstract
The case relating to Ranveer Allahabadia sparked many debates relating to the proper usage of free speech. The case prompted a parliamentary panel to give in writing to India’s Information Technology seeking ways to change present laws to put down such content. During this fiasco a lawmaker also made a request to the parliament to enact laws to regulate activities in social media. The Supreme Court of India though prevented the arrest of Allahabadia but pointed out that such activity from a person with such social media presence consisting 20 million subscribers in his YouTube channel and somebody who has taken interviews of stalwarts from all ranging from business, politics, sports or spirituality should have passed such irresponsible or condemnable comment on such sensitive matter. The Supreme Court judge Surya Kant did permit the show to resume as the livelihood of 280 employee’s dependent on the telecast of the show, however BeerBiceps is being prohibited to telecast any show which would be disadvantageous to the merits of the case. This article has shed some light over current controversy regarding ‘India’s Got Latent’ show and certain aspects relating to usage of freedom of speech in different social media platforms.
Case Laws
1) Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965) – In this case the appellant was convicted for possessing and distributing an obscene book, “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”, under section 292 of IPC. The Supreme Court held that the matters related to obscenity would be determined based on the effect it has on the minds of the public who would be exposed to it and whether such material would corrupt or deprave the public exposed to it.
2) Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) – A petition was filed after the Government of India banned the broadcast of certain vulgar and obscene content on TV. The court ruled that the content that violates public morality could be censored and a fair and transparent system for such regulations.
3) Mirzapur Imamsab v. Union of India (2005) – This case was about a petition being filed against the filming of “Bandit Queen”, claiming it to be obscene. The Supreme Court held that artistic expressions, including movies, are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution, but this right is subjected to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the public.
Conclusion
There is censorship related to online platforms like Google-owned YouTube in India. The 2025 controversy relating to the show ‘India’s Got Latent’ has underscored the delicate balance between creative expression and societal norms, as India still remains a fairly conservative society. This case also highlighted the judiciary’s role in handling and addressing content deemed to be offensive while considering the broader implications for employment and freedom of speech. This case also emphasized that content creators need to adhere to moral and societal standards even though the upheaval that followed after the controversy was more than anything but exaggerated hysteria from the country’s bureaucratic level and uncalled for even though there are other relevant issues in the country that needs more attention from the government. Nevertheless, this case did create awareness relating to the quality of contents that the content creators need to present in digital platforms especially when it comes to obscenity or offensive material.
FAQS
1) Has Ranveer Allahabadia aka BeerBiceps made a public apology for the remark?
Yes, the content creator did make a public apology video admitting a lapse in judgement on his part and also admitted that he has no forte relating to comedy and for this very reason he made the blatant mistake of commenting in such a way and expressed deep regret for the same.
2) Has the Supreme Court taken any action regarding the case?
In February 2018, 2025, the apex court of the country granted interim protection from arrest to Allahabadia. The court also condemned his remarks, calling them “perverted” embarrassment to the society and barred him from uploading any content that goes against public morality.
3) What has been the public reaction to the incident?
The public has negatively viewed the entire situation, with many criticizing the remarks as vulgar and inappropriate. The incident has sparked discussions and debates relating to the boundaries and limitations relating to what should be perceived to humor, especially in today’s digital content and influencer culture.
4) How did the controversy affect Ranveer Allahbadia’s career?
The controversy has adversely caused damage to the reputation of the famous content creator BeerBiceps, particularly among his followers and the public at large. His career as a YouTuber now hugely depends on the outcome of the legal proceedings and his own ability to his public image after the apology.
5) What was the root cause of the controversy that surrounds Ranveer Allahbadia (BeerBiceps)?
The issue started after BeerBicep made an inappropriate remark during his appearance on Samay Raina’s YouTube show “India’s Got Latent’. The comment, asking a contestant a highly vulgar hypothetical question, sparked public outrage and eventually led to calls for accountability on the part of the makers and the guests in the show.
