SC’s gag order on ranveer allahbadia raises free speech issue - The apex court’s order on ranveer allahbadia’s bail condition

The FIRs filed against podcaster-influencer Ranveer Allahbadia over his remarks on a YouTube show got interim protection from arrest from the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

But a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh had imposed certain conditions, including that Allahbadia or his associates should not put anything on social media till further orders.

The SC also asked the Indian Attorney General to address the “vacuum” in regulation of online content at the hearing.

Allahbadia got relief, but the gag order casts doubt on his right to free speech. It also contradicts a Supreme Court ruling that said such a requirement might have a “chilling effect on the freedom of speech.”

Bail Criteria

The High Court or the Court of Sessions may also direct that a person be released on conditional bail. The court will impose conditions based on the facts of the case.

In other cases, the courts have required the accused to reside in a particular locality or share a Google map PIN. - In a 2023 case, the SC observed that imposing such onerous conditions for grant of bail amounted to “selling bail” as in such cases the accused was required to deposit a large sum of money with the court to get bail.

Also Read: YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia seeks Supreme Court relief following multiple FIRs filed against him for controversial remarks

But a gag order is an unusual situation because it is a kind of prior restraint (when speech or expression is prohibited), even though it provides immunity from arrest.

Even though a gag order does not protect against arrest, it is an exception because it is a form of prior restraint, prohibiting speech or other expression before it happens.

In India there is a body of law that says the government cannot enact laws that have prior restraint. So in a hate speech case, the court could say that the person cannot make similar statements, essentially making the gag order narrow so that it doesn’t encroach on speech completely.

Previous SC Judgement

In 2022, a three-judge bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud had refused the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea that the accused be barred from tweeting while out on bail while granting bail to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair.

It cannot be a general anticipatory order restraining him from tweeting merely because the subject matter of the complaints relates to something he posted on a social media site. The objective of imposing conditions on bail would be out of proportion to a general order requiring the petitioner not to express an opinion which he is entitled to hold. It would amount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gagging orders have a chilling effect on free speech, the court said.

A gag order would “amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech, the court said, noting that Zubair would have to use social media as part of his job.