- The subject headline would be often mentioned in any democratic country and more so in a diverse, vibrant, and colouful like India, considered the cradle of democracy. As you are aware, the Indian democracy is by the people, for the people, and of the people built on the Constitutionally mandated rights assiduously guarded by the Supreme Court. We know how the Apex Court discharges responsibilities by interpreting the Constitution keeping the interests of the citizens as a paramount factor. Of course, the Indian citizens are also aware of how the higher judiciary sometimes gets labelled as more active than the Constitutional charter demands. However, none can dispute the fact that the SC is the last resort for any common citizen seeking to be heard.
)
PC: NDTV
- While the demarcation in the Constitution is unambiguous, the interpretation may be subject to further scrutiny, especially from the custodian, the highest court in the country. Thus, freedom of expression, the right to free speech, and similar such stuff are perennially in the news. With social media establishing a firm foothold in our daily lives, even a smaller issue gets magnified in no time, demanding the attention of all stakeholders. The country is aware of how podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia’s recent remarks on a show created a huge controversy that refuses to die down, reaching the hallowed portals of the SC. As reported, the SC has restored the podcaster’s economic freedom but curbs on his freedom of expression remain.
PC: LiveLaw
- Per SC, Ranveer may now make shows as long as they don’t violate traditional Indian norms on decency and morality. Of course, it’s a conditional relief, and welcome as far as it allows Allahbadia and his large crew to earn their livelihood, which is part of their right to life. But it also raises questions about the direction his case has taken, and the restraints placed on him. Allahbadia’s fault was that he said – in a paywalled show – something that most people would consider disgusting, or distasteful, across cultures. When police complaints were filed, he sought SC’s protection. He got a chiding, a total ban on podcasting until further orders, and protection from arrest on the condition that he surrender his passport.
PC: BBC
- Mind you, the blanket ban was unusual because it broke with precedent. The previous SC rulings are interesting, viz. must be narrowly tailored or narrowly interpreted so as to abridge or restrict only what is absolutely necessary. Further, gag orders have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Some more, SC had rejected pre-censorship as far back in 1950, which is what requiring Allahbadia to adhere to traditional decency and morality amounts to. The question before SC was whether Allabhadia’s remarks were obscene to be considered a criminal offence. His counsel reminded the court that disgust and revulsion are not tests of obscenity. Reasonable restrictions already exist vis-à-vis freedom of speech. We don’t need more curbs. Certainly not based on traditional ideas.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://kanigas.com/decency-obscenity-freedom-of-expression-and-right-to-speech/&media=https://kanigas.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/120367256_92c9c67c-ce05-46e2-af6c-bed92f6f6546.jpg&description=The transcript discusses the Indian Supreme Court's ruling on podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia's case, where he received conditional relief allowing him to continue his livelihood while restricting his freedom of expression based on "traditional Indian norms." This ruling raises questions about judicial precedent regarding freedom of speech, as the Supreme Court had previously rejected pre-censorship and emphasized that restrictions on expression should be narrowly tailored.){kind=link}