The recent controversy surrounding Ranveer Allahabadia’s comments on India’s Got Talent has reignited a critical debate about free speech, but I think the real issue is the danger of seeking exceptions to bad laws. While both the outrage and support are understandable, the conversation must shift from protecting individuals to addressing the systemic flaws in India’s legal framework. If the laws are arbitrary, the solution isn’t to demand exceptions—it’s to change the law itself.
This is easier said than done, because in India, the rule of law often feels like an alien concept. The volume of outrage frequently delivers results, even when it shouldn’t. Social justice, as it stands, appears to be limited to making vociferous demands on social media. Yes, the irony isn’t lost on me that I’m writing a blog post about this. But hear me out, because I’m trying to revive a conversation that has long been dead in India.
India’s History of Working Around Bad Laws
India has a long history of circumventing poorly designed laws, but this approach only exacerbates the problem and further reinforces subversion as the correct response. This is the route Ranveer himself chose as well. He’s apologised and will likely negotiate the problem away while endorsing the objections against his own speech. At this point, the biggest threats to his freedoms are supporters of his political allies. There is no shortage of influential mediators. If he believed he had a right to speak those words and stood by them, no matter how reprehensible I found his comments, I’d support his right to say them. But that’s not the case. Ranveer has himself acknowledged that his speech was highly inappropriate and isn’t attempting to claim he had a right to say those things. So now, the demands that he not face legal action are essentially demands to make him exempt from the law. You can’t claim he didn’t break the law, because in India, being obscene or offensive itself breaks the law—and there’s no doubt on that front. Those filing cases definitely have valid points.
When laws are vague or unjust, their unequal application becomes a tool for those in power to enforce their will. By allowing such laws to persist and seeking exceptions for specific individuals, we perpetuate a system where justice is arbitrary and the rule of law is replaced by the rule of might.
Let me digress here for a moment. Ranveer Allahabadia is extremely well-connected. He routinely interviews prominent celebrities and has been felicitated by the Prime Minister himself. He has a massive platform and strong ties among influencers and politicians. Even if you’re feeling protective about him, you are neither the support he needs nor the support that can actually do anything to help him. Your voice has been defanged for over a decade, and all you can do is pontificate inconsequentially—and if your voice grows stronger, you’ll have to toe a line or be silenced. So let’s not pretend there’s anything remotely “free speech” about your demands. It’s allowed speech.
If you really care about free speech, you’d do the cause a much greater service by calling for reform.
The Problem with Vague Laws
India’s laws around free speech are notoriously vague. Terms like “offensive,” “obscene,” or “inflammatory” are loosely defined, leaving them open to interpretation—and misuse. This ambiguity means that almost anyone can be accused of breaking the law, depending on who takes offense, and anybody with enough power can abuse others with impunity.
In Ranveer’s case, his comments on India’s Got Talent were deemed offensive by some, leading to legal complaints. But if “offensive” is the standard, then every comedian, journalist, or public figure is perpetually at risk. There’s no reasonable way for anyone to comply with a law that can be interpreted to taste. The solution isn’t to shield Ranveer from prosecution—it’s to demand clarity and fairness in the law itself.
A Free-for-All: Blasphemy, Women’s Commission, and Opportunism
The controversy has turned into a free-for-all, with various groups jumping into the fray for reasons that have little to do with the actual issue. Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi plans to bring it up for discussion as vulgar and “blasphemous” content—though it’s safe to say the gods are the only ones Ranveer hasn’t verbally stripped at this point. But let’s not expect logic. The Women’s Commission has summoned Ranveer and the contestant to appear on the 17th, despite the fact that neither the contestant was female nor was the joke about women in particular. TV anchors with a long history of fomenting communal hatred during family dinner time are suddenly worried about the influence of a YouTube show on younger generations. This is a classic case of behti Ganga mein haath dho lo—an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on the controversy without any real concern for the matter at hand.
Such actions dilute the seriousness of genuine issues and distract from the core problem: the use and misuse of vague laws to enforce reasonable social norms or suppress free expression.
Indian law does not recognize sexual harassment of men, leaving male victims without recourse. If a judge or someone in a position of power corners a participant with inappropriate sexual questions, it isn’t considered abuse. These are serious issues that deserve attention, but they are being overshadowed by baseless tantrums in the name of free speech. Even if we ignore this, there’s no consideration for the participant’s mother, who likely did not consent for her sex life—and her son’s involvement in it—to become an internet joke. And yes, that’s sexual harassment. Are you sure you’re calling this free speech? Can you explain, then, why the horrific Sulli Deals were not considered free speech?
The Selective Application of Laws
Countless individuals in India have been silenced for using their voice. Journalists and media houses face raids and arrests. Cartoonists and comedians are punished for jokes that dominant voices dislike. Political activists languish in jail for years without trial. This isn’t a new phenomenon, nor is Ranveer uniquely vulnerable.
In fact, Ranveer’s large platform and connections likely insulate him from the worst consequences. The government, eager to maintain his endorsement, will likely find ways to protect him from legal backlash. This isn’t a fight for the voiceless—it’s a fight for a privileged individual who doesn’t need the support of those whose voices have long been rendered inconsequential.
The Real Fight: Reform to Define Vague Terms
The real fight is to define vague terms like “offensive,” “obscene,” and “vulgarity” and to strengthen free speech so that it may truly serve our vision for our rights and be applied uniformly and unambiguously. Whether this means sexualized content cannot be made or whether we finally recognize that the line should be closer to actual harm to individuals, it must not be arbitrary. A politician cannot call for the bodies of a community he’s targeting to be exhumed and raped while a shock-value profiteer’s comment about parents having sex is hounded. Free speech must be protected vigorously, but that protection should extend to everyone—not just high-profile individuals or those who attack political targets.
This controversy could be a catalyst for meaningful change.
Ranveer’s case presents an opportunity to push for legal reform. If he holds his ground, then supporting him makes sense. But if he admits wrongdoing, as he has, demanding that he be exempt from prosecution only reinforces the idea that some are above the law.
Exceptions Undermine Justice
Seeking exceptions for individuals isn’t a fight for rights—it’s coddling. It perpetuates a system where the powerful are shielded from consequences while the marginalized bear the brunt of unjust laws. True justice requires that laws be fair, clear, and applied equally to all.
Conclusion: Change the Law, Don’t Circumvent It
The Ranveer Allahabadia controversy highlights the urgent need for legal reform in India. Vague laws and selective enforcement undermine democracy and stifle free expression. Instead of demanding exceptions for individuals, we must push for systemic change.
If the law is bad, fix it. Don’t seek exceptions—demand justice.