Recently, the Gauhati High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ashish Chanchalani in connection with an FIR filed by the Guwahati Police, alleging obscene and controversial remarks made during an episode of ‘India’s Got Latent’. However, the Court directed Chanchalani to appear before the investigating officer within ten days, observing that further proceedings would be subject to scrutiny in the upcoming hearing.
The matter arose from an FIR lodged by the Assam Police on February 12, based on a complaint by Alok Boruah. The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman), Section 95 (engaging a child to commit an offence), Section 294 (sale of obscene material), and Section 296 (obscene acts and songs). Additionally, provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, were also cited. The allegations claimed that Chanchalani, along with several other content creators, including Jaspreet Singh, Apoorva Mukhija, Ranveer Allahabadia, and Samay Raina, engaged in promoting obscenity through sexually explicit and vulgar discussions on the show.
Before the High Court, Senior Counsel Diganta Das, representing Chanchalani along with Advocate Joyraj Borah, argued that the YouTuber had no involvement in making the remarks that formed the basis of the FIR. The defense contended that the comments in question were made by another panellist, Ranveer Allahabadia, and that Chanchalani neither participated in nor endorsed the statements. Additionally, it was submitted that he had no editorial authority or role in the post-production of the episode and should not be held liable for the alleged content.
The Gauhati High Court carefully examined the allegations and the legal provisions invoked in the FIR. The Court acknowledged that the charges, particularly those under Sections 79 and 296 of the BNS (pertaining to acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman and obscene acts and songs), carried serious implications. However, it noted that liability in such cases requires an assessment of individual roles and intent.
While considering Chanchlani’s plea, the Court emphasized the necessity of balancing the enforcement of obscenity laws with fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression. The Court highlighted that attributing criminal liability for statements made by third parties in a public forum requires clear evidence of endorsement or active participation. Since the allegations against Chanchlani primarily stemmed from his association with the episode rather than direct remarks, the Court found that his immediate custodial interrogation was not warranted.
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that digital content creation involves multiple stages, including scripting, editing, and post-production, often handled by distinct teams. Thus, holding a participant criminally liable without concrete proof of involvement in the alleged offense would raise concerns about due process and fair investigation.
Granting interim anticipatory bail, the Court directed Chanchalani to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer within ten days. The matter has been scheduled for a final hearing on March 7, with the case diary summoned for judicial review.
Picture Source :
