Why did the supreme court make value judgement statements in their order of granting interim protection to Ranveer Allahbadia ?

[Rapidvyom507]

R

Rapidvyom507
PARTICIPANT
February 20, 2025 at 2:57 am

Isn’t that not their job , they even made statements that it definitely is obscenity when there was already case law that stated that vulgar doesn’t mean obscene in every instance. Is there any hope for this court ?

Share

[Deepakhawk372]

D

Deepakhawk372
PARTICIPANT
February 20, 2025 at 3:11 am

These laws are very vague. This allows the executive and judiciary to exclusively decide what is right and wrong. They decide it based on many factors. Although, such things should not be decided by judiciary, but they are, due to vagueness of such laws. Supreme Court similarly made value judgements to nupur sharma

Share

[User_778cc350]

U

User_778cc350
PARTICIPANT
February 20, 2025 at 6:36 am

Supreme Court did not make a judgement. It made some observations. SC is yet to hear the case. But, why be so bothered about some youtuber, who invited his trouble onto himself?

Share

[Rapidvyom507]

R

Rapidvyom507
OP
February 20, 2025 at 6:47 am

>But, why be so bothered about some youtuber, who invited his trouble onto himself?

I don’t care about him. His humor is cringe , I’ve never watched their vids same for samay Raina and I wouldn’t care if their channels got demonetised , I’m not against them but I just wouldn’t care.

I’m worried about the fact that the state has unilateral power to censor speech on the basis of vague and subjective grounds. This is a precedent that should never ever be allowed.

Also I’m fairly certain that I remember that judges are not supposed to make remarks of personal opinion in a recent judgement yet they’re contradicting that here.

This is the judgement I’m talking about
https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/judgment-cannot-contain-personal-opinions-judges-not-preach-supreme-court

Share

[User_778cc350]

U

User_778cc350
PARTICIPANT
February 20, 2025 at 6:52 am

Didn’t I just say SC is yet to hear that case? It has not even listed the case for hearing, let alone pass a judgement.

State always has power over you. That’s what state is. What state can’t do is violate your constitutional rights.

Share

[Rapidvyom507]

R

Rapidvyom507
OP
February 20, 2025 at 6:56 am

I’m sorry. I might be misunderstanding. Maybe they can point their personal opinions in orders but not in judgements since afaik they are different things in different contexts.

Still is it appropriate or in line with judicial ethics to make value statements like these ? It seems to be pre judiciary

Share

[User_778cc350]

U

User_778cc350
PARTICIPANT
February 20, 2025 at 6:57 am

Yeah it’s fine.

Share

[Rapidvyom507]

R

Rapidvyom507
OP
February 20, 2025 at 7:25 am

Do their statements necccesarily mean that they are going to make judgements in the same way as their statements ? The judges said “if this isn’t obscenity then I don’t know what is” so if a freedom of speech case was assigned to them within the context of obscenity , would they likely judgement the same way ? Would it even be appropriate for the CJI to assign such cases to judges who have already made pre judicial statements such as this

Share

[User_778cc350]

U

User_778cc350
PARTICIPANT
February 20, 2025 at 11:37 am

No

Share

[Author]

Posts