Logo
Court Book - India Code App - Play Store

YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia (BeerBiceps) Approaches Supreme Court Over Multiple FIRs Linked to Controversial Show

15 Feb 2025 11:58 AM - By Court Book

YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia (BeerBiceps) Approaches Supreme Court Over Multiple FIRs Linked to Controversial Show

Popular YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, widely known as BeerBiceps, has approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against him in Maharashtra and Assam. The cases stem from alleged obscene and vulgar remarks made during a recent episode of the online show India’s Got Latent.

Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing Allahbadia, urgently sought a hearing before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. However, the CJI declined the request, emphasizing that oral mentions for urgent listings are not permitted.

“We have already given a date (of listing),” CJI Khanna stated during the proceedings. When Chandrachud pressed further, citing concerns about actions by Assam police, the CJI firmly replied, “No oral mentioning.”

Background

The disputed episode was filmed on November 14, 2024, at Khar Habitat and aired later, sparking widespread criticism. The show’s panel, including Allahbadia, comedian Samay Raina, and YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani, faced backlash for consistent use of abusive language during discussions.

Following the episode’s release, FIRs were registered in Maharashtra and Assam, accusing the creators of violating obscenity laws and public decency standards.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Tamil Nadu’s Challenge Against Isha Yoga Centre: Is a Yoga Center an Educational Institution?

Chandrachud highlighted the risk of multiple FIRs across states, arguing that such actions could lead to harassment. He stressed that the petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to protect Allahbadia’s fundamental rights against arbitrary legal actions.

“There are multiple FIRs being filed,” Chandrachud told the court. The CJI, however, maintained that the case would follow standard listing procedures.

The Supreme Court has assigned a future hearing date, though specifics remain undisclosed.