The Supreme Court on Tuesday provided interim protection from arrest to podcaster-influencer Ranveer Allahbadia in connection with FIRs filed against him for remarks made on a YouTube show.
However, a Bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh imposed strict conditions, including a prohibition on Allahbadia and his associates from airing any content on social media until further orders.
Additionally, the Supreme Court sought the assistance of the Attorney General of India in the next hearing to address the “vacuum” in the regulation of online content.
While the court’s relief prevents Allahbadia’s immediate arrest, the imposition of a gag order raises concerns regarding free speech. This restriction contradicts a previous Supreme Court ruling, which held that such a condition could have a “chilling effect on the freedom of speech.”
Petitioner’s Plea for Protection
Allahbadia had approached the Supreme Court seeking to merge multiple FIRs filed against him and requesting an interim order preventing his arrest.
Effectively, this request was similar to an anticipatory bail plea, which is commonly filed under Article 32 of the Constitution to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and prevent arbitrary police action.
The practice of registering multiple FIRs in different locations for the same alleged offense has been recognized in numerous cases as a constraint on personal liberty.
Courts generally consolidate such FIRs or allow proceedings to continue under just one, staying the others to prevent the accused from being required to appear in multiple courts. Ultimately, even if convicted, the accused would serve a common sentence rather than consecutive ones.
Supreme Court’s Gag Order on Ranveer Allahbadia
The Supreme Court stayed FIRs filed against Allahbadia in Jaipur and Guwahati and also restrained the registration of any future FIRs based on the same allegations. It further permitted him to approach the police for protection in case of any threats.
However, the court imposed two key conditions: first, Allahbadia was required to surrender his passport to prevent him from leaving the country; second, it directed that “he or his associates shall not air any show on YouTube or any other audio/video visual mode of communication till further orders.”
Conditions for Bail
Under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the High Court or the Court of Sessions may grant conditional bail, depending on the circumstances of the case.
For instance, requiring an accused to deposit their passport is a measure to mitigate the risk of flight. Bail may also involve a substantial monetary bond to ensure that the accused cooperates with the investigation. Another frequent requirement is for the accused to report periodically to a designated police officer.
In some cases, courts have imposed stringent bail conditions, such as sharing a live Google Maps location or residing in a specific locality. In a 2023 case, where an accused was required to deposit an excessive sum of money to obtain bail, the Supreme Court criticized the practice, stating that imposing such conditions was akin to “selling bail.”
“How many times have you stood in the Supreme Court and High Court objecting to such onerous conditions? How can we start selling bail like this?” a Bench led by Justice Ravindra Bhat had remarked.
Despite the range of bail conditions imposed in various cases, a gag order as a prerequisite for interim relief is unusual. Such an order constitutes a form of prior restraint—where speech or expression is prohibited before it takes place.
Indian legal precedent generally prohibits the state from enacting prior restraint laws. In hate speech cases, courts may prohibit the accused from making similar statements, but such restrictions are usually narrowly defined to avoid excessive interference with free speech.
Previous Supreme Court Ruling on Gag Orders
In 2022, while granting bail to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice D Y Chandrachud rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s request to bar him from tweeting while out on bail.
“Merely because the complaints… arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion—an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold…—would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” the court observed.
The court further emphasized that Zubair needed access to social media as a medium of communication for his profession, stating that a gag order would “amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession.”
