The Supreme Court has restrained YouTuber and entrepreneur Ranveer Allahabadia and associated influencers from airing any other episodes until further orders, The court was hearing a plea challenging multiple FIRs lodged against Allahabadia following remarks made on the show India’s Got Latent.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud informed the bench that Allahabadia had received multiple death threats. “A reward of ₹5 lakh has been announced for cutting his tongue. A former wrestler has openly stated that he should not be spared in any party where he is seen. And all this is for a mere 10-second clip,” he submitted according to Bar and Bench.

The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, questioned the language used by Allahabadia, asking, “If this is not obscene, then what is? You can display vulgarity anytime and show depravity?”

The court sought clarity on the parameters of obscenity and vulgarity in Indian society, stating that self-evolved societal values must be considered.

When asked whether he was defending the language used, Chandrachud responded, “As an officer of the court, I am disgusted at the language used.” However, he argued that threats and violent reactions were disproportionate responses to a social media clip.

The court noted that only two FIRs—one in Mumbai and another in Assam—were officially on record. Justice Kant remarked, “Liberty is a separate issue. It is not that every case is targeting you or entangling you. If there were 100 FIRs, one could claim an inability to defend oneself. But that is not the case here.”

Chandrachud, however, pointed out that a third FIR had been registered on Sunday.

Justice Kant said that allegations varied across the FIRs. The court, however, granted interim protection from coercive action to Allahbadia in FIRs lodged against his comments on YouTube show. The court said if any other FIR is lodged against Allahbadia over his comments, he shall not be arrested.

But Kant asserted that such behaviour must be condemned and that popularity does not grant the right to take societal norms for granted.

“Is there anyone on earth who would appreciate this language? There is something very dirty in his mind that has been vomited out. Why should we protect him?” he questioned. The bench also noted: “We even know he has tried to copy from an Australian program, we are not sitting in an ivory tower.”

Chandrachud clarified that he was not defending the statements on moral grounds but maintained that Allahabadia should not be subjected to multiple FIRs for the same alleged offence.

The hearing is set to continue as the bench deliberates on the legal aspects of the matter, including free speech, obscenity laws, and judicial precedents on multiple FIRs for similar offences.