In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday called on the state governments of Assam and Maharashtra to submit their responses concerning a plea by popular YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani. Chanchlani has petitioned for the transfer of an obscenity case against him from Guwahati to Mumbai. The case has drawn substantial attention due to its implications on content creation and legal jurisdiction.
The FIR, lodged in Guwahati, stems from allegations that Chanchlani promoted obscenity in the show “India’s Got Latent.” The show, which has come under scrutiny, also involves podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia as the key accused. Amidst growing controversy, the Gauhati High Court had previously granted Chanchlani anticipatory bail.
During the proceedings, the Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotishwar Singh, noted the legal complexity of handling multiple FIRs spread across different states. Chanchlani’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Ajay Tewari, emphasized the need to determine which FIR should prevail, suggesting a consolidation of the cases for judicial efficiency.
The controversy began with an episode filmed on November 14, 2024, at Mumbai’s Khar Habitat, which featured what many have described as overtly abusive language from its panel members, including Chanchlani and others like comedian Samay Raina. Following the broadcast, a complaint was filed on February 10, leading to Chanchlani’s charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alongside the Information Technology Act, Cinematograph Act, and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
In his plea to the Supreme Court, Chanchlani seeks to quash the Assam FIR, arguing it was registered subsequent to an earlier FIR in Mumbai over the same incident. Alternatively, he has requested the transfer of the Assam case to Mumbai to centralize the legal proceedings.
The apex court’s decision to issue notices to the involved states and tagging the plea alongside a similar application by Allahbadia indicates a consolidated approach to these related legal challenges. The court has withheld airing of any related shows pending further review, underscoring the case’s impact on media and legal practices.
