Today, the Supreme Court broadened the scope of the Ranveer Allahabadia case to examine the necessity of a regulatory mechanism for controlling vulgar content on YouTube and other online platforms.

A bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh urged the Union Government to draft a regulation and make it publicly available for stakeholder suggestions.

"With regard to telecast or airing of programmes which are not acceptable in terms of the known moral standards of our society, some regulatory measures may be required. We have suggested to the learned Solicitor General of India to deliberate upon and to suggest such regulatory measures which may not impose [..] on the relevant right of free speech and expression but at the same time which are also effective to ensure the parameters of such fundamental rights as delineated in Article 19. Any draft regulatory measure in this regard can then be brought in public domain to invite suggestions from all the stakeholders before taking any legislative or judicial measure in this regard. For this purpose, we are inclined to expand the scope of these proceedings."

This significant development arose from a petition filed by YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia, challenging multiple FIRs accusing him of obscenity over remarks made on the India's Got Latent show.

Two weeks ago, while issuing notice on the petition, the Court had strongly criticized the language used in the show and emphasized the need for a regulatory framework for the Union Government.

The bench revisited the issue today as well, with Justice Surya Kant emphasizing the need for a regulatory framework that does not amount to "censorship."

"We don't want any regulatory regime which leads to censorship...but it can't be a free for all platform. Just because you have commercial interests, it cannot be that you can say anything. See the quality of humor he has...humor is something the entire family can enjoy, nobody feels embarrassed. Using all filthy language is not talent," Justice Surya Kant said.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta agreed with the bench’s view, stating that a structured approach was necessary—one that safeguards freedom of expression while ensuring adherence to standards of decency and morality.

"Free expression should be protected but vulgarity and perversity should not reach our children," SG said. He added that if a person has to use vulgarity to make someone laugh, it only means that he is not a good comedian.

(1) RANVEER GAUTAM ALLAHABADIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025

(2) ASHISH ANIL CHANCHLANI Versus STATE OF GUWAHATI AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 85/2025