What the court missed in the Allahbadia case

The judiciary's role is to test speech-restricting laws on the anvil of the Constitution's fundamental rights-not to egg on the State to bring in such laws

- Gautam Bhatia

On February 18, the Supreme Court made headlines after its oral remarks about the YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, who was seeking legal protection after a crass joke that he had made on his channel sparked outrage and led to police proceedings against him in multiple states. Before the Supreme Court, Allahbadia made a very basic prayer: As there were police FIRs against him in more than one state for making the same joke online (a tactic that is often used by states to harass individuals by making them run from place to place when summoned by the police), he asked that these FIRs be "clubbed" together so that he could defend himself in one place rather than be dragged from pillar to post.

This is a very common-sense relief that should have been given for the asking. However, the Supreme Court instead chose to lash out at Allahbadia, stating that he had a "perverted" and "dirty" mind and that his joke would have shamed the "mothers, sisters, and younger brothers" of society. This is unfortunate, as the role of the Court is to dispassionately consider the case before it on the touchstone of law and the Constitution, instead of taking up the cudgels of outrage on behalf of society at large. A joke may be crass and distasteful, but there is a reason why the law does not criminalise such jokes: if it did so, most of the country would be behind bars at some point or the other.